People v. Fiorini
| Decision Date | 15 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 3-87-0865,3-88-0050,s. 3-87-0865 |
| Citation | 548 N.E.2d 729,192 Ill.App.3d 396,139 Ill.Dec. 344 |
| Parties | , 139 Ill.Dec. 344 PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Geno FIORINI, d/b/a Cook's Trailer Court, et al., Defendants-Appellants (Geno Fiorini, et al., Defendants-Counterplaintiffs-Appellants; City of Ottawa, et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellees; United States of America, Housing Urban Development Agency, et al., Third Party Defendants). PEOPLE of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff, v. Geno FIORINI, d/b/a Cook's Trailer Court et al., Defendants-Appellants (Geno Fiorini et al., Defendants Counterplaintiffs-Appellants; City of Ottawa, et al., Third Party Defendants-Appellees; United States of America, Housing Urban Development Agency, et al., Third Party Defendants). |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Gerald M. Hunter (argued), Gerald M. Hunter, Ltd., Oglesby, for Geno Fiorini, Bernardine Fiorini.
Michael T. Reagan, Ottawa, Karen C. Eiten, Herbolsheimer, Lannon, Henson, Duncan & Reagan, Ottawa, for Trustees of Ottawa Elementary.
John A. Hayner, Ottawa, for City of Ottawa.
Douglas J. Pomatto, Richard K. Hunsaker (argued), Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Rockford, for Zion Lutheran Church.
Edward J. Kuleck, Jr., Ottawa, for Richard Thompson, Glen Thompson.
Nancy J. Rich, J. Jerome Sisul, Asst. Attys. Gen., Chicago, for People.
The State of Illinois filed a complaint on August 13, 1986, alleging that the defendants-counterplaintiffs, Geno and Bernardine Fiorini, permitted waste consisting of demolition debris, tires, wood, appliances, scrap metal, and steel drums to be deposited into and near a ravine located behind their trailer park located approximately three-fourths of a mile west of Ottawa, Illinois. The disposal site is not licensed as a sanitary landfill thus violating the open dumping provision of section 21 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1021.) The relief requested in the State's complaint included an injunction prohibiting the defendants from disposing any further waste at the site, an injunction requiring the defendants to remove all waste improperly stored, a civil penalty under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act in the amount of $10,000 for each act, and a continuing penalty of $1,000 for each day of said violation for the abatement of the alleged nuisance.
On April 24, 1987, the defendants-counterplaintiffs filed an answer and a counterclaim asserting third-party claims against the State of Illinois, the City of Ottawa, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, The Catholic Diocese of Peoria, Zion Lutheran Church, and Richard Thompson and Glen Thompson, claiming that each of these parties had caused or allowed certain debris to be dumped on their property. The State of Illinois was subsequently dismissed as a counterdefendant in the instant lawsuit and the defendants-counterplaintiffs filed a similar action against the State of Illinois in the Illinois court of claims. Thereafter, the defendants-counterplaintiffs were allowed to file an additional answer and counterclaim in the present action. The second answer and counterclaim which was filed on June 9, 1987, included third-party claims against all of the previously mentioned parties with the exception of the State of Illinois and also included a third-party claim against School District Number 141, LaSalle County, Illinois. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was subsequently dismissed from the lawsuit. The trial court then granted motions to dismiss the third-party complaint which were filed by the remaining third-party defendants. In dismissing the third-party complaint, the trial court held that pursuant to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act it was within the prosecutorial discretion of the Illinois Attorney General to determine whom the State brought their complaint against and that the defendants-counterplaintiffs did not have the right under the Act to bring a third-party action. The defendants-counterplaintiffs appeal the dismissal of their third-party complaint.
On appeal, the defendants raise two arguments: (1) Article XI, section 2 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides a constitutional right on the part of the defendant to enforce their right to a healthful environment against the various third-party defendants; and (2) the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) provides remedies for private persons against persons whom they assert caused the dumping of waste upon their property. Although the specific issues raised by the defendants will be discussed in the text of this opinion, this court will focus on the more fundamental question of whether or not the Illinois Environmental Protection Act precludes third party actions. This is a matter of first impression for Illinois courts, and before delving into the relevant statutory language, a closer examination of the facts and circumstances surrounding the instant appeal is warranted.
In the defendants-counterplaintiffs' second counterclaim, it was alleged that the City of Ottawa caused or allowed demolition debris from the Ottawa police and fire station and Lockwood Glass Building to be deposited on their property. The police and fire station and Lockwood Glass Building were demolished pursuant to a bridge expansion, known as the Veterans' Memorial Bridge project. Thereafter, the City of Ottawa, in its answer to the counterclaim submitted an affirmative defense claiming that the State of Illinois, through the Department of Transportation, acquired title to the buildings in question and contracted for their demolition and the disposition of the debris therefrom.
With regard to the remaining third-party defendants, the defendants-counterplaintiffs' amended counterclaim set forth the following allegations. The Catholic Diocese of Peoria caused or allowed the debris from the demolition of the St. Columbia School and the St. Francis School to be deposited at their ravine. The Zion Lutheran Church caused or allowed the debris from the demolition of a parish house to be deposited at their ravine. Richard and Glen Thompson caused or allowed the demolition debris of Hillcrest Motel to be dumped at the ravine site. School District Number 141 caused or allowed demolition debris from sidewalks at Warren P. Shepherd Junior High School to be deposited at the site. The second counterclaim requested relief in the form of an injunction against all third-party defendants directing them to remove all wastes disposed on their property and the assessment of civil penalties under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The defendants-counterplaintiffs first argue that their third-party complaint was improperly dismissed because of language found in the Illinois Constitution. Article XI, section 2, of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 provides:
(Emphasis added.)
While this constitutional language does support private actions for the enforcement of a healthful environment, these rights are subject to reasonable limitations that may be established through laws passed by the Illinois General Assembly. Thus, an examination of the relevant provisions of the Illinois Environmental Act is necessary to determine if the instant third-party action was properly dismissed.
The defendants-counterplaintiffs rely on the following provisions of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act to support their third-party action:
"No person shall:
a. Cause or allow the open dumping of any waste * * *.
* * * * * *
e. Dispose, treat, store or abandon any waste, or transport any waste into this State for disposal, treatment, storage or abandonment, except at a site or facility which meets the requirements of this Act and of regulations and standards thereunder." Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1021.
The defendants-counterplaintiffs argue that the third-party defendants knowingly caused or allowed demolition and other debris to be deposited at the unlicensed ravine site and that the legislative declaration of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act supports their third-party action. Section 2 of the Act, which sets forth the legislative declaration, provides in pertinent part:
"(a) * * *
(v) that in order to alleviate the burden on enforcement agencies, to assure that all interests are given a full hearing, and to increase public participation in the task of protecting the environment, private as well as governmental remedies must be provided; * * *
(b)
(b) It is the purpose of this Act, as more specifically described in later sections, to establish a unified, state-wide program supplemented by private remedies, to restore, protect and enhance the quality of the environment, and to assure that adverse effects upon the environment are fully considered and borne by those who cause them." (Emphasis added.) Ill.Rev.Stat.1987, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1002(a)(v); 1002(b).
Therefore, the defendants maintain that their private third-party action brought against parties who caused the dumping of waste upon their property is permitted under the Act. Although the statutory language cited by the defendants-counterplaintiffs does support private remedies, none of these sections specifically address the issue of whether the Act permits third-party actions.
The third-party defendants contend, however, that since the defendants-counterplaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief under the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, that administrative remedies must first be exhausted before pursuing a third-party action in a civil court. The third-party defendants cite to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fiorini
...appeal from the appellate court's decision which reversed the trial court's dismissal of the third-party complaint (192 Ill.App.3d 396, 139 Ill.Dec. 344, 548 N.E.2d 729). The third-party complaint alleges that third-party defendants are liable for, among other things, injunctive relief and ......
-
Habinka v. Human Rights Com'n
... ... administered, can "drive a car, * * * teach school, or do any of the things required to make a living." His experience confirmed that people in methadone treatment programs could "mak[e] decisions that would involve substantial risks to people's financial, medical, or legal welfare." A ... ...
- Phyllis Delaney, and Karen Watts, and Brenda Lackey, and Marlene Scheidt v. Skyline Lodge, Inc.
-
People v. Brockman
...for violations of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act. A similar issue was presented to this court in the case of People v. Fiorini 139 Ill.Dec. 344, 548 N.E.2d 729 which was consolidated with the instant case for purposes of oral arguments. Both the case at bar and Fiorini were heard......