Housing Authority for LaSalle County v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Ottawa

• Decision Date: 13 January 1983
• Docket Number: 82-127,Nos. 82-161,s. 82-161
• Citation: 67 Ill.Dec. 654,444 N.E.2d 1138,112 Ill.App.3d 65
• Parties: , 67 Ill.Dec. 654 HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR LaSALLE COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA, Illinois, Defendant-Appellee. v. Robert ALLEN, Intervening Defendant-Appellee, v. The CITY OF OTTAWA, Illinois, an Illinois Municipal Corporation, Intervening Petitioner-Appellee, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR LaSALLE COUNTY and Young Men's Christian Association of Ottawa, Illinois, Respondents-Appellants.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 1138

444 N.E.2d 1138

112 Ill.App.3d 65, 67 Ill.Dec. 654

HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR LaSALLE COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. YOUNG MEN'S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION OF OTTAWA, Illinois, Defendant-Appellee. v. Robert ALLEN, Intervening Defendant-Appellee, v. The CITY OF OTTAWA, Illinois, an Illinois Municipal

Corporation, Intervening Petitioner-Appellee, v. HOUSING AUTHORITY FOR LaSALLE COUNTY and Young Men's

Christian Association of Ottawa, Illinois,

Respondents-Appellants.

Nos. 82-161, 82-127.

Appellate Court of Illinois,

Third District.

Jan. 13, 1983.

George Mueller, Hoffman, Mueller & Creedon, Ottawa, for plaintiff-appellant.

James Lanuti and Paul V. Martin, Lanuti, Martin & Lanuti, Warren, Hayner & Baxter, Ottawa, Barton & Sorokas, Marseilles, for defendant-appellee.

ALLOY, Justice:

Plaintiff Housing Authority for LaSalle County (hereinafter Housing Authority) appeals from the entry of summary judgment against it, and for the defendant Young Men's Christian Association of Ottawa (hereinafter YMCA) in this title dispute case. The court determined that the plaintiff's action was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, based upon a prior suit in federal district court involving the Housing Authority's and the YMCA's predecessors in title and the property in dispute in the case. The Housing Authority appeals from the entry of summary judgment and argues (1) that the issues involved in the prior suit were not sufficiently similar so as to support a bar by collateral estoppel in this suit; (2) that collateral estoppel does not apply because the judgment in the prior suit was based upon a consent agreement; and (3) that equitable principles outweigh the technical requirements of the doctrine and the interests of justice dictate that the doctrine not be applied, and the parties be given a full opportunity to litigate their dispute.

The record reveals that the Housing Authority filed the instant suit against the YMCA in 1981, alleging that the YMCA had commenced construction of a parking lot, a portion of which encroached upon the property of the Housing Authority. A temporary restraining order was entered and further construction halted, pending resolution of the case. An amended complaint asked the court to quiet title to the disputed real property. Both counts of the amended complaint at issue herein alleged ownership of the property by the Housing Authority, pursuant to previous deeds and chain of title. The YMCA filed an affirmative defense, alleging that ownership to the disputed property had been previously determined by the District Court of the United States, Northern District of Illinois, in Case N.40531, United States v. Elizabeth Wirtz, et al., a decision handed down on November 21, 1932. The YMCA also filed a counterclaim in the instant action, to quiet title. Attached to the pleadings filed by the YMCA was a copy of the United States v. Wirtz decision. Wirtz was an action brought by the United States against a number of landowners along the Fox River, for the condemnation of flood plain easements, and for the fixing of compensation for the condemnation.

The petition by the government in Wirtz set forth the United States' powers of condemnation, the fact that the Attorney General had been unable to satisfactorily approve title due to its confused state, and the existence of outstanding and adverse claims to the real estate. It was specifically set forth in the petition that the First Trust Company of Ottawa, Illinois, the YMCA's predecessor in title, claimed legal title to part of the real estate designated as Tract No. 0-20 to 0-25, under a specified warranty deed, duly recorded. Also specifically set forth was that Charles and Ella Deenis, the Housing Authority's predecessors in title, claimed legal title to part of the real estate designated as Tract No. 0-20 to 0-25, under a different specified warranty deed. In addition, the petition sets forth the fact that this property, claimed by both predecessors in title, was encumbered by a lien for the 1931 general taxes. A map showing the property was also attached. In the Wirtz suit, the Deenises were personally served with summons in the action, but they made no appearance and a default judgment was entered against them. The First Trust Company, YMCA's predecessor in the action, appeared. The judgment order reveals that the First Trust Company filed a stipulation, waiving its right to trial by the jury, and submitted the matter to the trial court judge. In the judgment order, the trial court made a specific finding, "upon the record herein and the evidence presented, * * * that the First Trust Company of Ottawa, Illinois, is seized with fee simple title to the real estate," being the property again in dispute in the instant case. Compensation was set at $600 by the court in Wirtz, as the value for the flood plain easement. There is no dispute between the parties in the instant case that the property covered in the Wirtz order is the same as is now claimed by them, as successors in title to the First Trust Company and the Deenises.

The decision by the court in Wirtz was thereafter recorded at the LaSalle County Recorder's Office, indicating the judicial determination that title to the property was held by the First Trust Company. The YMCA took title to the property in 1956, by warranty deed, and the Housing Authority took title to their property in 1962.

The trial court, on defendant YMCA's motion for summary judgment, supported by affidavit and certified copies of the petition and order in the Wirtz case, entered judgment for the YMCA, based upon application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. An appeal was taken by the Housing Authority.

The basic rules with respect to the doctrine of collateral estoppel were ably set forth in Kramer v. Chicago Title & Trust Co. (1st Dist.1979), 69 Ill.App.3d 1015, 1018, 26 Ill.Dec. 275, 387 N.E.2d 1105:

"Estoppel by verdict or collateral estoppel is an extension of the doctrine of res judicata. It is based on the principle that a question once adjudicated by a proper court is to be considered as finally settled and conclusive on the unsuccessful parties. Estoppel by verdict or collateral estoppel is applicable even where the parties are not arrayed on opposite sides in prior litigation or formal issues have not been drawn up between them." (Citations omitted.) See also Creeco v. Northern Illinois Gas (2d Dist.1966), 73 Ill.App.2d 218, 222, 219 N.E.2d 257.

The doctrine operates as a bar, to parties and their privies, and is applied if the party against whom it is raised actually litigated the matter or had the opportunity to litigate the matter in a former action. (In re Marriage of Donnellan (1st Dist.1980), 90 Ill.App.3d 1032, 1035-1036, 46 Ill.Dec. 445, 414 N.E.2d 167.) Collateral estoppel applies as a bar to relitigation where the same parties or their privies attempt to relitigate an issue that was previously decided by a court of competent jurisdiction, even though the cause of action was different. The parties agree on the basic principles to be applied. Application to the facts is the crux of the dispute on this appeal.

In the instant case, while the YMCA's and the Housing Authority's predecessors in title were both arrayed as co-defendants in the prior Wirtz action, their actual adversity with respect to the real estate was sufficiently set forth. The pleadings in Wirtz stated that both predecessors in title, by virtue of their chain of title, claimed part of the property identified as Tracts 0-20 to 0-25, which is the same property at issue in the instant case. The pleadings, setting forth the dual claims, pursuant to chain of title, set forth an adversity between the parties. Furthermore, the question of title to the disputed property was at issue in the previous litigation, for the district court's jurisdiction over condemnation proceedings of necessity carries with it the power to determine who, among competing claimants, owns the land. (United States v. 1629.6 acres of Land, More or Less, in the County of Sussex, State of Delaware, et al., 503 F.2d 764, 766 (3d Cir.1974).) It is evident that the government, in the Wirtz action, recognized the respective chains of title resulting in competing claims for the property, as between the parties' predecessors in title, and that those claims needed resolution in the condemnation action. Both the Deenises and First Trust Company were parties in the previous action. The fact that the Housing Authority's predecessors in title, the Deenises, chose not to defend the action does not insulate them from operation of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Their claim was before the court, and the fact that they chose not to litigate, thereby forfeiting their opportunity to pursue it, does not affect the bar set up by collateral estoppel. The question was before the court in Wirtz, the predecessors in title were before the court, and a determination of title, based upon the record, was made. Contrary to the Housing Authority's assertions, we find, as did the trial court, that the requisite specific adversity existed in Wirtz, that the court therein had the power to determine title rights to the property between parties in the case, and that it did in fact determine the title rights to the property. There was a specific finding that the YMCA predecessor in title, the First Trust Company, was seized with fee simple title to the real estate. Had the Deenises not defaulted, but stood to litigate the matter, they could have asserted their claim to the property. They had their opportunity to do so, but chose not to do so. Therefore, they, and their successors in title, are barred, under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, from seeking...