Enbridge Pipeline (Ill.), LLC v. Temple
| Decision Date | 06 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | 4-15-0360 cons.,NOS. 4-15-0346,4-15-0349,S. 4-15-0346 |
| Citation | 80 N.E.3d 784,2017 IL App (4th) 150346 |
| Parties | ENBRIDGE PIPELINE (ILLINOIS), LLC, n/k/a Illinois Extension Pipeline Company, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Carla S. TEMPLE, as Trustee of the Carla S. Temple Family Trust; nonrecord claimants; and unknown owners, Defendants–Appellants. Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC, n/k/a Illinois Extension Pipeline Company, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Terry Adreon, as Trustee of the Residuary Trust under the last will and testament of Robert H. Davis; nonrecord claimants; and unknown owners, Defendants–Appellants. Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC, n/k/a Illinois Extension Pipeline Company, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. JPR Family Partnership LP, nonrecord claimants, and unknown owners, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Mercer D. Turner II, of Law Office of Mercer Turner, P.C., of Bloomington, for appellants.
Gerald A. Ambrose, Steven J. Horowitz, and Dale E. Thomas, of Sidley Austin LLP, of Chicago, and Jacob E. Gancarczyk and John M. Spesia, of Spesia & Ayers, of Joliet, for appellee.
¶ 1 In April 2014, the Illinois Commerce Commission (Commission) granted plaintiff, Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC, now known as the Illinois Extension Pipeline Company, LLC (IEPC), eminent-domain authority to acquire easements over certain real estate for the planned construction of an approximately 170-mile liquid petroleum (oil) pipeline known as the Southern Access Extension (SAX project).
¶ 2 During June and July 2014, IEPC filed separate complaints for "condemnation of permanent and temporary easements for common-carrier pipeline" (condemnation complaints) against defendants (1) Carla S. Temple (Temple) (McLean County case No. 14–ED–5 and this court's case No. 4–15–0346); (2) Terry Adreon (Adreon) (McLean County case No. 14–ED–8 and this court's case No. 4–15–0349); and (3) JPR Family Partnership LP (JPR) (McLean County case No. 14–ED–28 and this court's case No. 4–15–0360) (collectively, landowners). IEPC sought to obtain right-of-way and easement interests in landowners' respective properties and to determine just compensation for its interests. Thereafter, landowners each filed a "traverse and motion to dismiss" (traverse motion), requesting dismissal of IEPC's condemnation complaints. In November 2014, the trial court denied landowners' traverse motions.
¶ 3 In February 2015, IEPC filed a motion for summary judgment under section 2–1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Civil Code) ( 735 ILCS 5/2–1005 (West 2014) ), arguing that no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the just compensation IEPC should pay to landowners for its right-of-way and easement interests. After landowners responded to the summary judgment motion, IEPC essentially contended that because (1) landowners had failed to file counteraffidavits in opposition to IEPC's motion for summary judgment as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(a) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013) and (2) IEPC properly complied with Rule 191(a) by filing affidavits in support of its motion, IEPC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of just compensation. Following a March 2015 hearing, the trial court granted IEPC's summary judgment motion and awarded just compensation totaling $45,000 (Temple $1000; Adreon $21,000; and JPR $23,000).
¶ 4 Landowners appeal, raising numerous claims that challenge the trial court's rulings. For the reasons that follow, we vacate the trial court's denial of landowners' traverse motions and remand with directions for further proceedings.
¶ 6 The issues presented in this appeal concern the trial court's rulings on the following issues: (1) landowners' traverse motions, which include landowners' request for discovery prior to the traverse hearing and (2) IEPC's motion for summary judgment on its condemnation complaints. The following chronological discussion is confined to matters pertinent to those two issues.
¶ 8 In Enbridge Energy (Illinois), L.L.C. v. Kuerth , 2016 IL App (4th) 150519, ¶¶ 6–23, 410 Ill.Dec. 62, 69 N.E.3d 287, and Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Hoke , 2017 IL App (4th) 150544, ¶¶ 6–23, 414 Ill.Dec. 664, 80 N.E.3d 807, this court chronicled the extensive procedural history regarding IEPC's intent to (1) construct, operate, and maintain the SAX project under section 15–401 of the Common Carrier by Pipeline Law (Pipeline Law) ( 220 ILCS 5/15–401 (West 2006) ) and (2) acquire, when necessary, private property under eminent-domain authority to install the SAX project as permitted by section 8–509 of the Public Utilities Act ( 220 ILCS 5/8–509 (West 2006) ). In the interest of brevity, we provide only a truncated synopsis to place landowners' appeals in context.
¶ 10 In August 2007, IEPC applied for a certificate in good standing, seeking the Commission's authorization to (1) construct, operate, and maintain the SAX project and (2) acquire, when necessary, private property under eminent-domain authority. Specifically, IEPC sought (1) a 60-foot wide permanent easement right-of-way for the pipeline and (2) an additional 60-foot temporary easement to facilitate construction.
¶ 11 In July 2009, the Commission granted IEPC a certificate in good standing, which authorized construction of the SAX project. The Commission, however, denied IEPC's request for eminent-domain authority, urging, instead, that IEPC continue negotiations with recalcitrant landowners who had declined IEPC's compensation offers. The Commission advised IEPC that it could renew its request for eminent-domain authority by "demonstrating that it has made reasonable attempts to obtain easements, through good-faith negotiations."
¶ 12 Some affected landowners (intervenors) appealed the Commission's grant of a certificate in good standing, and this court affirmed. Pliura Intervenors v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 405 Ill. App. 3d 199, 200, 347 Ill.Dec. 373, 942 N.E.2d 576, 578 (2010) ( Intervenors I ). Specifically, we rejected intervenors' argument that the Commission erred by determining that (1) IEPC was fit, willing, and able to construct, operate, and maintain an oil pipeline and (2) a public need existed for the pipeline. Intervenors I , 405 Ill. App. 3d at 208–09, 347 Ill.Dec. 373, 942 N.E.2d at 584–85.
¶ 14 In July 2013, IEPC renewed its request for eminent-domain authority, seeking to condemn specific tracts of land traversed by the planned SAX project route because the owners of those respective properties had either (1) refused to negotiate with IEPC or (2) declined IEPC's compensation offers despite extensive negotiations. Following a December 2013 administrative hearing, an administrative law judge (ALJ) recommended that the Commission grant IEPC eminent-domain authority. In April 2014, the Commission accepted the ALJ's recommendation and granted IEPC eminent-domain authority. In so doing, the Commission explained that the grant of a request for eminent-domain authority under section 8–509 of the Public Utilities Act requires "a utility [to] show that it made a reasonable attempt to acquire the property at issue." Intervenors affected by the Commission's grant of eminent-domain authority appealed, and this court affirmed. Pliura Intervenors v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 2015 IL App (4th) 140592-U, 2015 WL 2451757( Intervenors II ). Pertinent to this appeal, we rejected intervenors' argument that the Commission's grant of eminent-domain authority was not supported by substantial evidence that IEPC had engaged in good-faith negotiations. Id .
¶ 16 In May 2014, IEPC filed a "Motion to Reopen and Amend Order Concerning Diameter of the [SAX project]," requesting an amendment to the July 2009 certificate in good standing that the Commission issued. Specifically, IEPC sought to reduce the diameter of the SAX project from 36 to 24 inches, explaining that uncertain economic conditions and market demand for a different grade of crude oil caused IEPC to reevaluate the initial parameters of the SAX project. In December 2014, the ALJ recommended that the Commission grant IEPC's amendment, subject to certain conditions. The Commission later determined that public convenience and necessity required issuance of an amended certificate to authorize a 24-inch pipeline. Intervenors appealed, and this court affirmed the Commission's order. Pliura Intervenors v. Illinois Commerce Comm'n , 2016 IL App (4th) 150084-U, 2016 WL 1296040 ( Intervenors III ).
¶ 18 In separate letters dated May 19, 2014, IEPC proffered final offers of (1) $1035 to Temple, (2) $84,795 to Adreon, and (3) $85,200 to JPR for a 60-foot permanent right-of-way and a 60-foot temporary work-space area to be used during construction of the SAX project. In total, IEPC sought (1) permanent easements traversing approximately 7.371 acres of landowners' parcels and (2) temporary easements traversing approximately 8.062 acres landowners' parcels. In exchange for its aggregate land interests, IEPC offered landowners $171,030 in total compensation. IEPC conveyed that (1) its offer would expire in 10 days and (2) if landowners rejected the offer, IEPC would file suit against landowners to enforce its interests.
¶ 19 Beginning in June 2014—after landowners failed to respond to its offers—IEPC filed separate condemnation complaints, seeking to determine the just compensation for its right-of-way and easement interests in landowners' respective properties. Appended to IEPC's motion was the Commission's (1) July 2009 order, which granted IEPC authorization to construct the SAX project and (2) April 2014 order, which granted IEPC eminent-domain authority.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Enbridge Pipeline (Ill.), L.L.C. v. Murfin
...414 Ill.Dec. 664, 80 N.E.3d 807 ; Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Temple , 2017 IL App (4th) 150346, ¶¶ 92-93, 414 Ill.Dec. 641, 80 N.E.3d 784 ; Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Monarch Farms , LLC , 2017 IL App (4th) 150807, ¶¶ 89-90, 415 Ill.Dec. 688, 82 N.E.3d 1234. ¶ 89 Our nar......
-
BNSF Ry. Co. v. Grohne
...the manifest weight of the evidence. Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Temple , 2017 IL App (4th) 150346, ¶ 89, 414 Ill.Dec. 641, 80 N.E.3d 784. A finding of fact is against the manifest weight of the evidence where an opposite conclusion is clearly evident. University of Illinois v. Ind......
-
City of Springfield v. Ameren Ill. Co.
...entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Temple , 2017 IL App (4th) 150346, ¶ 69, 414 Ill.Dec. 641, 80 N.E.3d 784. When determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must construe all pleadings and attachments strictly against th......
-
Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Monarch Farms, LLC
...upon in the instant case. See Enbridge Pipeline (Illinois), LLC v. Temple , 2017 IL App (4th) 150346, ¶¶ 33, 91-95, 414 Ill.Dec. 641, 80 N.E.3d 784 (in which this court considered arguments raised by the similarly situated landowners at the October 2014 hearing)).¶ 32 Our review of the argu......