Forest Preserve Dist. v. Brown Family Trust
Decision Date | 17 July 2001 |
Docket Number | No. 2-00-0289.,2-00-0289. |
Parties | The FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF DU PAGE COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Loren and Gisela BROWN FAMILY TRUST, Defendant-Appellee and Cross-Appellant (Bruce Gordon, Dartmoor Homes Acquisition Corporation, and Unknown Others, Defendants-Appellees). |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Scott M. Day, Rachel K. Robert, Day & Robert, P.C., Robert G. Black, Law Offices of Robert G. Black, Naperville, for Forest Preserve District of Du Page County.
Stephen D. Helm, Jacqueline J. Casey, David W. Krula, Steve Helm & Associates, Naperville, for Loren and Gisela Brown Family Trust.
Gary M. Vanek, Schwarz, Vanek & Weiler, P.C., West Dundee, for Bruce Gordon.
Samuel G. Harrod IV, Meltzer, Purtill & Stelle, Schaumburg, for Dartmoor Homes Acquisition Corp.
Michael M. Roth, Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon, Lisle, for County of Du Page, Homewood-Flossmoor Park District, McHenry County Preservation District, City of Naperville, Amici Curiae.
Bryan E. Mraz, Law Offices of Bryan E. Mraz & Associates, Roselle, for Village of Bartlett, Amicus Curiae.
James E. Ryan, Attorney General, Joel D. Bertocchi, Solicitor General, George J. Sotos, Mary T. Nagel, Assistant Attorneys General, Chicago, for the People ex rel. James Ryan, Amicus Curiae.
Plaintiff, the Forest Preserve District of Du Page County (the District), appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of defendants, the Loren and Gisela Brown Family Trust (the Browns), Bruce Gordon, Dartmoor Homes Acquisition Corp. (Dartmoor), and unknown others. On appeal, the District argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendants.
In the nonpublishable portion of this opinion, we address the District's contention that the trial court erred in denying the District's motion to disqualify the Browns' counsel. We also address therein the Browns' cross-appeal of the trial court's orders striking portions of their traverse and motion to dismiss and denying their motion to reconsider.
On May 19, 1998, the District passed Ordinance No. 98-206, which authorized the District's executive director, staff, and attorneys (collectively, the staff) to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of property owned by the Browns. The ordinance provided in relevant part:
The District and the Browns did not reach an agreement.
On June 2, 1998, the District passed Ordinance No. 98-228, which provided in relevant part:
On July 8, 1998, the District filed a complaint for condemnation. The complaint named the Browns as owners of the real estate and listed defendants Bruce Gordon and Dartmoor Homes Acquisition Corp. as other interested parties. In response, the Browns filed a traverse and motion to dismiss, asserting, among other things, that the complaint for condemnation was filed without proper and lawful authority.
[The following material is nonpublishable under Supreme Court Rule 23.]
[The preceding material is nonpublishable under Supreme Court Rule 23.]
Both sides moved for summary judgment on the traverse and motion to dismiss. On November 29, 1999, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Browns, holding that Ordinance No. 98-228, which authorized the initiation of the condemnation proceedings, was invalid. In its memorandum opinion and order, the trial court found that the Ordinance "improperly delegates the decision to condemn to the District's attorneys and staff." The trial court further found:
The District's motion to reconsider was subsequently denied.
Nonpublishable material removed here
Amicus curiae briefs in support of the District have been filed in this matter by the Village of Bartlett, the People of the State of Illinois, the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, the County of Du Page, the City of Naperville, the McHenry County Preservation District, and the Homewood-Flossmoor Park District.
Nonpublishable material removed here
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS
As a sovereign, the State has the inherent power to condemn property for public use. Forest Preserve District v. West Suburban Bank, 161 Ill.2d 448, 453, 204 Ill.Dec. 269, 641 N.E.2d 493 (1994). "The necessity or propriety of exercising the right of eminent domain is a political question,—one which belongs exclusively with the legislature to determine." Village of Hyde Park v. Oakwoods Cemetery Ass'n, 119 Ill. 141, 149, 7 N.E. 627 (1886). However, the legislature may delegate the power of eminent domain to other governmental bodies (City of De Kalb v. Anderson, 43 Ill.App.3d 915, 917, 2 Ill.Dec. 617, 357 N.E.2d 837 (1976)), and it is the province of the courts to determine whether that power has been exercised within that grant (Forest Preserve District, 161 Ill.2d at 453, 204 Ill.Dec. 269, 641 N.E.2d 493).
A governmental body has only such powers of eminent domain as are conferred upon it by the appropriate legislative body, and a statute or ordinance conferring the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed. Village of Round Lake v. Amann, 311 Ill.App.3d 705, 712, 244 Ill.Dec. 240, 725 N.E.2d 35 (2000); Forest Preserve District v. Estes, 222 Ill. App.3d 167, 175, 164 Ill.Dec. 724, 583 N.E.2d 640 (1991). The right of eminent domain by a department of government can be exercised only when such grant is specifically conferred by legislative enactment, and then only in the manner and by the agency so...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce v. Pappas
...the manner it directs a local government to exercise that responsibility"); see also Forest Preserve District v. Brown Family Trust, 323 Ill. App.3d 686, 691, 257 Ill.Dec. 484, 753 N.E.2d 1110, 1114 (2001), quoting Village of Hyde Park v. Oak Woods Cemetery Ass'n, 119 Ill. 141, 149, 7 N.E. ......
-
Ndc LLC v. Topinka
... ... that the legislature did not express." Forest Preserve District of Du Page County v. Loren & sela Brown Family Trust, 323 Ill. App.3d 686, 692, 257 ... ...
-
Parikh v. Div. of Prof'l Regulation of the Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Regulation
...limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express.” Forest Preserve District of Du Page County v. Loren & Gisela Brown Family Trust, 323 Ill.App.3d 686, 692, 257 Ill.Dec. 484, 753 N.E.2d 1110 (2001). “Only where the language of the statute is ambiguous may the court resort to ......
-
The City of CHICAGO v. ST. JOHN'S UNITED CHURCH of CHRIST
...statute or ordinance conferring the power of eminent domain must be strictly construed. Forest Preserve District v. Brown Family Trust, 323 Ill.App.3d 686, 691, 257 Ill.Dec. 484, 753 N.E.2d 1110 (2001). In construing an ordinance, we apply the same principles of construction that we would i......
-
Reviving necessity in eminent domain.
...question--one which belongs exclusively with the legislature to determine.'" (quoting Forest Preserve Dist. v. Brown Family Trust, 753 N.E.2d 1110, 1114 (2001))); State ex rel. Wagner v. St. Louis City. Port Auth., 604 S.W.2d 592, 599 (Mo. 1980) ("The necessity, expediency and propriety of ......