Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel
2012 IL 113569
| Ill. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs bought land in Kendall County and built a new house on the site of an old farmhouse they had ownership of since 1998.
- Defendants operate a cattle farm adjacent to plaintiffs’ property since 1991; flies allegedly emanate from defendants’ farm.
- Plaintiffs alleged nuisance due to flies interfering with use and enjoyment of their home, seeking injunctive relief.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing § 3 of the Farm Nuisance Suit Act bars the suit as a changed condition after the farm began operations.
- Circuit court denied summary judgment and entered relief; appellate court affirmed on merits but vacated injunctive relief as vague/overbroad.
- Court reverses, holding plaintiffs’ acquisition of the property created a changed condition that brought the nuisance within § 3’s bar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 3 bars the nuisance suit as a changed condition | Toftoys: acquisition created changed condition; flies were ongoing nuisance from start | Rosenwinkels: changed conditions occurred after farm existed for over a year; § 3 bars suit | Yes, § 3 bars the suit. |
| How to interpret 'nuisance' and 'changed conditions' in § 3 | Nuisance refers to ongoing interference; coming-to-the-nuisance defense applies | § 3 codifies coming-to-the-nuisance concept to bar suits after one year | § 3 codifies bar to nuisance suits when ownership change constitutes the changed condition. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gaffney v. Board of Trustees of the Orland Fire Protection District, 2012 IL 110012 (Il. 2012) (de novo review of Farm Nuisance Act interpretation by court)
- City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 213 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 2004) (limits on public nuisance actions under immunities and statutory context)
- Swedenberg v. Phillips, 562 So. 2d 170 (Ala. 1990) (describes coming to the nuisance doctrine)