2016 IL App (1st) 150960
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority filed a condemnation complaint and a quick-take motion to acquire three small interests in a South Barrington property needed for I‑90 improvements: a 0.068‑acre fee, a 0.011‑acre permanent easement, and 243.12 linear feet of access‑control rights. The Authority previously offered $28,000 and later the parties stipulated $45,000 as preliminary compensation.
- Guardian (a mortgagee) filed a traverse and motion to dismiss asserting the Authority lacked statutory compliance; South Barrington adopted Guardian’s pleadings.
- The Authority moved to strike the traverse and motion to dismiss; the circuit court granted the motion to strike, found the Authority had authority to condemn, and awarded preliminary compensation.
- South Barrington appealed under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 307(a)(7), which limits interlocutory review to: (1) plaintiff’s authority to exercise eminent domain; (2) whether the property is subject to condemnation; and (3) whether eminent domain is being properly exercised.
- The court reviewed documentary materials only (no testimony), evaluated whether the board resolution reasonably described the property and other procedural challenges, and affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Authority) | Defendant's Argument (South Barrington/Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board resolution reasonably described the property to be condemned | Resolution No. 20446 (and its exhibit by PINs) reasonably described the parcels and authorized condemnation of any or all of the identified parcels or parts thereof | Resolution’s description of the entire 12.44‑acre parcel is insufficiently specific as to the small subsections actually sought; fatal to condemnation | Court held the resolution reasonably described the property (affirmed) |
| Whether the Authority had made required pre‑suit notices and good‑faith offers under the Eminent Domain Act | Authority complied with pre‑suit procedures and made good‑faith attempts to acquire property; offered $28,000 before suit | The July 29, 2014 offer was not in good faith because the Authority lacked final board authorization until Resolution No. 20446 in August 2014; pre‑suit requirements not satisfied | Court refused to consider these arguments as they were forfeited (not raised below) |
| Whether the complaint’s legal descriptions (especially access control rights) were inadequate or overbroad | Complaint described the specific fee, easement, and access control rights and attached legal descriptions/PINs | Complaint sought a blanket access‑control easement without assigned value and contained inaccurate description for the third parcel | Court rejected defendants’ contentions; held descriptions and attachments were sufficient for present interlocutory issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. DiBenedetto, 275 Ill. App. 3d 400 (condemnor’s enabling resolution must reasonably describe property)
- Miller, 339 Ill. App. 3d 244 (inconsistency between exhibit descriptions defeats sufficiency)
- City of Rockford v. Rockford Life Insurance Co., 16 Ill. 2d 287 (ordinance must reasonably describe property sought)
- Department of Transportation v. Hunziker, 342 Ill. App. 3d 588 (good‑faith pre‑suit efforts are condition precedent; standard of review guidance)
- Department of Transportation v. 151 Interstate Road Corp., 209 Ill. 2d 471 (appellate review: legal issues de novo; factual findings reviewed for manifest weight when evidence was presented)
- Southwest Illinois Development Authority v. Vollman, 235 Ill. App. 3d 32 (issues other than the three in §20‑5‑10(b) are reserved until final judgment)