Gupta v. Alley
| Decision Date | 05 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | CONSOLIDATED NO. 5-12-0437,CONSOLIDATED NO. 5-12-0261 |
| Parties | VINOD C. GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AIRBRUSH ALLEY, BATH & BODY WORKS, CLAIRE'S BOUTIQUE, COFFEE BREAK, COMBINED MARTIAL ARTS, COUNTRY GOURMET, COUNTRY PORCH, COVER CRAZY, DEB SHOP, EARTHBOUND TRADING CO., FASHION BUG, FINISHLINE, FISH TALES PET SHOP, FOX'S FLOWERS, FUJIYAMA, GAMESTOP, GNC, GUSTO DI ITALIA, HEARTLAND REGIONAL MEDICAL, HIBBETT SPORTS, HIGHLIGHTS SALON & GIFTS, HONG KONG BUFFET, ILLINOIS STAR CENTRE, LLC, INCREDIBLE COOKIE, KAS WINDOWS, KAY JEWELERS, LANE BRYANT, LOCKHART & CO., MAJESTIC RESTORATION SERVICES, MAN-TRA-CON, MASTERCUTS, ORIENTAL WORLD, PAYLESS SHOE SOURCE, PIRATE PETE'S, REGIS HAIRSTYLES, RSP HEATING & COOLING, SHOE SENSATION, SISTERS THREE, SOUTHERN ILLINOISAN, SUBWAY, THE HEARING PLACE, THE LEARNING ZONE, THE SALUKI CONNECTION, HINGS REMEMBERED, THREE CHICKS, WORLDWIDE TRAVEL, and WPSD TV-CHANNEL 6, Defendants-Appellees. VINOD C. GUPTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK & CO., Defendant-Appellee, and GE COMMERCIAL FINANCE BUSINESS PROPERTY CORPORATION, Intervenor-Appellee, v. VINOD C. GUPTA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
Decision filed 12/05/13. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same.
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Williamson County.
Judge, presiding.
Judge, presiding.
¶ 1 Held: Where an easement for use of a parking lot and common areas was recorded and filed in Williamson County, later purchase of the underlying property by tax sale did not void that easement.
¶ 3 This appeal involves a shopping mall in the City of Marion, Illinois. The mall, originally known as the Illinois Centre Mall, is now the Illinois Star Centre Mall. Illinois Star Centre, LLC, is the present owner of the mall building. A Dillard's department store and a Target store are adjacent and attached to the mall. Neither is involved in these cases. A Sears, Roebuck & Co. department store is in a separate building adjacent to the mall. The Sears building owner went into mortgage foreclosure. Upon completion of the foreclosure process, title to the Sears building was with GE Commercial Finance Business Property Corporation.
¶ 4 The mall and Sears building have a parking lot consisting of approximately 28.5 acres. An easement was filed with the Williamson County recorder of deeds office in 1991, whichprovided that after construction of the buildings and common areas was complete, each party would grant an easement to every other party allowing all to use the parking area "for the parking and passage of passenger motor vehicles *** and passage by pedestrians." The term "party" is defined in the agreement to include any signatory to the agreement and any person who acquired an interest in or to any part of the shopping center site.
¶ 5 The mall and the parking lot were separate parcels of land. At the time that the project was developed, Illinois Centre Associates owned both parcels. Illinois Centre Associates did not keep current with real estate taxes, and the two parcels were subject to a tax sale by Williamson County. Vinod C. Gupta purchased the parking lot pursuant to the tax sale process in November 2007 and obtained a tax deed in late 2010. Illinois Star Centre, LLC, purchased the parcel containing the mall property at the tax sale. On approximately November 15, 2010, Gupta began billing Sears and the mall tenants for use of his parking lot. The bills or assessments are not included in the record. The tenants did not pay the bills, citing to the easement agreement. Gupta filed two lawsuits asking the court for injunctive relief barring Sears and the mall tenants from using his property, or for damages for failing to pay rent for its usage. Sears and the mall tenants asked the court to dismiss each complaint because of the existence and application of the easement. The trial court dismissed the complaint in the Sears case, holding that the easement affirmatively defeated Gupta's claim. In Gupta's case against the mall tenants, the trial court dismissed the complaint as barred by collateral estoppel. Gupta appeals both dismissals. By court order dated November 9, 2012, we consolidated these two appeals.
¶ 7 The mall project began in the early 1990s. The developer was Illinois Centre Associates. Illinois Centre owned certain parcels of land in Marion. Construction Developers, Incorporated, purchased some of this land from Illinois Centre for constructionof a Dillard's department store. Dayton Hudson, doing business as Target, also purchased some of this land for construction of a Target store. Illinois Centre owned the balance of the parcel. While unclear from the record on appeal, Sears, Roebuck & Co. had a lease with Illinois Centre Group. That lease is not in the record. The Sears store predated other department stores on the shopping mall parcel. Dillard's and Target built their stores adjacent to the shopping mall. At that time, Illinois Centre owned the parking lot surrounding the department stores and the mall. The development contract required Dillard's and Target to have an entrance to the mall shopping space from inside each store. The developer was responsible for all construction work on the mall and on the common areas, including the parking lot.
¶ 8 In September 1999, Illinois Centre Group, LLC, conveyed the Sears building property to Illinois Centre SRCO 500, LLC. This new entity became Sears's landlord. This lease required Illinois Centre SRCO to provide parking necessary for the operation of the Sears store.
¶ 9 The mall parcel of land was separate from the parking lot parcel of land. In 1991, the mall parcel and the parking lot parcel had the same owner-Illinois Centre Associates, LLC. Illinois Centre Associates did not pay the property taxes on either parcel in 2006. Williamson County sold both parcels at a tax sale. Gupta purchased the parking lot parcel. Illinois Star Centre, LLC, purchased the mall parcel.
¶ 10 Suit Against Sears, Roebuck & Co.
¶ 11 In his complaint filed on April 28, 2011, Gupta alleged that on November 15, 2010, he notified Sears, Roebuck & Co. that he was the owner of the parking lot. Gupta notified Sears that if Sears was paying for the use of the parking lot, from that date forward, Sears must pay Gupta instead. Alternatively, he asked a Sears representative to contact him if Sears wanted to lease the parking lot from him. Gupta alleged that Sears owed him $18,000for rent plus unspecified out-of-pocket expenses for real estate taxes, utilities, maintenance, and repair. Count I of the complaint pursued compensatory damages. In count II of his complaint, Gupta asked the court for injunctive relief barring Sears from using his parking lot for any reason. In his prayer for injunctive relief, Gupta asked the court to order compensatory damages of $18,000, plus the unspecified other expenses incurred.
¶ 12 Sears filed a motion to dismiss Gupta's complaint on July 15, 2011. Sears argued that the court should dismiss Gupta's complaint for several reasons. Sears argued that there was no relationship between Sears and Gupta. Without a relationship, Sears contended that Gupta could not have an expectation of and an entitlement to damages. Sears also argued that Gupta was a party to the parking lot easement because the definition of a "party" within the easement document included persons who acquired an interest in the parking lot. Sears explained that it held a right as a permitee under the easement agreement. Sears contended that the recorded easement agreement labels the easement as one that runs with the land, and relevant Illinois law states that a tax deed issued on a parcel will not destroy an easement that runs with the land.
¶ 13 On July 22, 2011, the receiver for Illinois Centre SRCO 500, LLC, Richard Robey, filed a motion to intervene in Gupta's case against Sears. Illinois Centre, who owned the building leased to Sears, was currently in bankruptcy. In a declaratory judgment complaint, the receiver alleged that the parking lot easement was a perpetual easement with termination only possible if a party abandoned the easement for four continuous years, and if the easement was not important to any contemplated use by the grantee of the easement. The receiver also sought reimbursement of $10,000 from Gupta that the receiver paid for maintenance of the parking lot on behalf of Illinois Centre SRCO 500, LLC.
¶ 14 On August 8, 2011, Gupta responded to Sears's motion to dismiss. Gupta claimed that Sears was relying upon the wrong easement statute and after the county issued a new taxdeed following a sale for unpaid taxes, issuance of the new deed extinguished the easement. Gupta also argued that Sears was a third-party beneficiary to the original easement agreement, and third-party beneficiaries were not entitled to enforce the covenants of the agreement.
¶ 15 One week later, Gupta filed a motion for leave to amend his complaint against Sears. His proposed amended complaint added several counts. In count I, Gupta asked the trial court to award damages for use of his parking lot. Count II contained similar allegations and sought damages for unjust enrichment. Count III sought a declaratory judgment that the easement was void and that Sears could not take advantage of the easement. Counts IV, V, VI, and VII alleged that the "parties" to the easement agreement breached the agreement by not paying taxes, by not taking some action to avoid foreclosure, by neglecting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial