Nature Conservancy v. Wilder Corp. of Delaware
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18203
7th Cir.2011Background
- Nature Conservancy bought Wilder's farmland for $16.35M in spring 2000; Wilder remained as tenant until end of 2002 and conducted cattle operations thereafter; Conservancy conducted environmental inspection before closing and uncovered rubbish and toxic substances; Supplemental Agreement held back $75,000 for potential cleanup by Wilder by August 1, 2000; Conservancy sued Wilder in Feb 2006 for breach of contract and environmental remediation claims, which the district court largely resolved in Conservancy's favor; on appeal, Wilder challenges only the additional contamination claim south of the Pump House and argues laches bars it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether laches bars the breach-of-contract claim seeking damages. | Conservancy: statute-based limits apply; laches requires prejudice, which is absent. | Wilder: undue delay plus prejudice warrants laches; Conservancy caused prejudice by delaying assertion. | No prejudice shown; laches defense fails; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sundance Homes, Inc. v. County of DuPage, 195 Ill.2d 257 (2001) (laches requires prejudice from unreasonable delay; public policy on statutes of limitations)
- Maksym v. Loesch, 937 F.2d 1237 (7th Cir.1991) (laches generally cannot bar damages actions in private contract cases; depends on equitable relief)
- Kotsias v. Continental Bank, N.A., 235 Ill.App.3d 472 (1992) (to invoke laches, must show lack of diligence and prejudice)
- DeBruyn v. Elrod, 84 Ill.2d 128 (1981) (prejudice or misled reliance required for laches)
- Smith v. Caterpillar, Inc., 338 F.3d 730 (7th Cir.2003) (prejudice shown where witnesses, memories, and documents are disadvantaged by delay)