The Village of LaFayette v. Brown
2015 IL App (3d) 130445
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2015Background
- Village of LaFayette (pop. ~230) enacted Ordinance No. 420 (Apr. 2, 2012) declaring "commercial farming" within village limits a nuisance.
- Jerod and Dana Brown purchased a 57-acre property (6 acres in the village) in June 2011; they converted a former tree nursery into row-crop (corn/soybean) farming and began planting in May 2012.
- Village sent a notice to abate (June 1, 2012) and sued the Browns (June 6, 2012) seeking penalties and an injunction to stop commercial farming under the new ordinance.
- Trial court acquitted the Browns of the ordinance violation for lack of notice but nonetheless issued an injunction prohibiting further commercial farming, finding the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (740 ILCS 70/1 et seq.) did not apply.
- On appeal the court considered whether the Farm Nuisance Suit Act preempts the village ordinance and whether the Act bars municipal nuisance enforcement against the Browns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Farm Nuisance Suit Act preempts LaFayette Ordinance No. 420 | Village: Act inapplicable because defendants’ operation did not meet Act’s “changed conditions” or other requirements; ordinance valid municipal exercise | Browns: Act preempts ordinance because it protects farms from nuisance treatment when statutory elements are met | Held: Ordinance preempted by the Act; injunction vacated |
| Whether "changed conditions" under the Act requires physical neighborhood change (vs. change in law/ownership) | Village: Ordinance enactment is not a changed condition; statute contemplates encroaching residential uses | Browns: A change in law (ordinance) or ownership can constitute changed conditions under Toftoy | Held: Changed condition can include the enactment of municipal ordinance (and Toftoy supports change in legal status); Act applies |
| Whether interruption or change in type of farming defeats Act protection | Village: Change from nursery to row crops or any interruption defeats Act; statute should be read narrowly | Browns: Continuous agricultural use and Act's plain language protect farming despite crop/type change | Held: Court rejects narrow reading; Act protects farms in these facts and ordinance lacked exceptions, so preempted |
| Whether trial court correctly enjoined farming despite acquittal on notice grounds | Village: Municipality can abate nuisances to protect public welfare | Browns: Act bars municipal nuisance enforcement here; injunction improper | Held: Injunction vacated because ordinance conflicts with and is preempted by the Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, 2012 IL 113569 (Illinois Supreme Court) (change in ownership can constitute a "changed condition" under the Farm Nuisance Suit Act)
- Village of Northfield v. BP America, Inc., 403 Ill. App. 3d 55 (preemption where local ordinance infringes state policy)
- In re E.B., 231 Ill. 2d 459 (plain-language statutory interpretation governs)