Shulte v. Flowers
983 N.E.2d 1124
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Plaintiffs owned Charter Oaks mobile-home park on Terminal Avenue; flooding occurs in Charter Oaks due to drainage onto it.
- Defendant acquired nine acres across from Charter Oaks and altered it for parking/garbage-collection use, removing topsoil and adding gravel.
- Defendant increased earthwork: removed soil, compacted north 2.25 acres, laid gravel on two sections, and deepened/widened a ditch along Terminal Avenue.
- Defendant raised a building on his land by one foot but kept overall elevation similar.
- County Materials Corporation bought the eastern 4.5 acres, laid gravel and compacted; their drainage work also affected runoff.
- Experts and witnesses testified mixed about flooding change; rainfall increases in 2008-2010 and a clogged drain contributed to flooding; Plaintiffs alleged defendant’s changes worsened flooding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting reconsideration | Shulte argues trial court erred by not deferring to findings supporting increased runoff | Flowers contends the evidence was insufficient and decision against manifest weight | No abuse of discretion; judgment affirmed |
| Whether defendant’s changes unreasonably increased surface-water flow | Shulte asserts modifications caused unreasonable drainage onto servient land | Flowers argues damages were not proven and other factors caused flooding | Trial court’s findings not against manifest weight; burden not satisfied by plaintiffs |
| How to apply good-husbandry/reasonableness in urban setting | Templeton not controlling; should allow reasonable changes | Reasonableness balancing favors defendant given other factors | Reasonableness test applied; not proven unreasonableness by defendant's work |
| Causation and contribution of other factors | Multiple factors (rainfall, County Materials, clogged drain) contributed | Cannot separate effects; damages speculative | Causation not proven; damages speculative; not reversible error |
| Admissibility and weight of expert testimony on runoff | Plaintiff offered expert runoff data | No comparable expert proof of runoff increase | Insufficient expert proof to prove increased runoff attributable to defendant |
Key Cases Cited
- Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 (1974) (good-husbandry/urban reasonableness standard applied to surface water)
- Dovin v. Winfield Township, 164 Ill. App. 3d 326 (1987) (balancing test for reasonableness of use in urban setting)
- Mello v. Lepisto, 77 Ill. App. 2d 399 (1966) (origin of civil-law rule on drainage rights)
- Templeton v. Huss, 57 Ill. 2d 134 (1974) (see above)
- Callahan v. Rickey, 93 Ill. App. 3d 916 (1981) (deferential review of factual findings in drainage cases)
- Bollweg v. Richard Marker Associates, Inc., 353 Ill. App. 3d 560 (2004) (differences in factual posture; burden and expert proof)
- Starcevich v. City of Farmington, 110 Ill. App. 3d 1074 (1982) (pleading stage discussion on breach of drainage duties)
- Eisenbrandt v. Finnegan, 156 Ill. App. 3d 968 (1987) (evidence on drainage project conformity and outcomes)