Standlee v. Bostedt
Decision Date | 29 March 2019 |
Docket Number | No. 2-18-0325,2-18-0325 |
Citation | 137 N.E.3d 833,2019 IL App (2d) 180325,434 Ill.Dec. 761 |
Parties | Larry STANDLEE, Ronald Edelmann, and Joseph Arras, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joseph BOSTEDT and Eva Bostedt, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Patrick M. Griffin, of Griffin Williams LLP, of Geneva, for appellants.
Jeffrey A. Meyer, of Klein, Stoddard, Buck & Lewis, LLC, of Sycamore, for appellees.
¶ 1 Plaintiffs, Larry Standlee, Ronald Edelmann, and Joseph Arras, filed a complaint to enjoin defendants, Joseph and Eva Bostedt,1 from constructing a detached garage on their one-acre lot. There were no other detached garages in the subdivision. Plaintiffs claimed that a declaration of covenants for the subdivision, recorded in 1991, prohibited the garage. The trial court agreed and ordered that the Bostedts demolish their permit-approved, nearly completed, $ 50,000 garage. The Bostedts appeal, arguing that the court misinterpreted the declaration to contain an absolute ban on detached garages. They urge that the declaration did not set forth a blanket prohibition but, rather, contained a procedure for seeking a variance. However, because there was no trustee, committee, or association to approve a variance, they were denied the opportunity to seek one. We agree that the declaration contained a variance procedure and conclude that it that was no less a part of the declaration than the general restrictions. Because there was no access to the variance procedure, we will not enforce the restriction against the garage. This approach is consistent with the general principles to enforce restrictive covenants only when they are clear and to resolve any doubt in favor of property rights and the free use of land. We reverse.
¶ 3 In 2014, the Bostedts bought a home in the Williamsburg Green subdivision, in Elgin. The subdivision consisted of four platted units, Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4. These units were platted between 1978 and 1990. Unit Nos. 3 and 4 together contain 95 lots. Approximately five empty lots remain. An exhibit with an aerial view of a portion of Unit No. 4, which contains the Bostedts' home, shows each lot to be approximately the same size, and one witness testified that her lot was one acre. Unit Nos. 3 and 4 share similar restrictions, which are set forth in two nearly identical declarations that cross-reference one another. They are dated 1986 and were recorded in 1991.
¶ 5 The developer named the First National Bank of Elgin as the trustee. The declaration governing Unit No. 4 reads, in pertinent part:
¶ 6 Although the declaration refers to a trustee, a committee, and an association, none of these existed when the Bostedts purchased their home or at any time relevant to this case. A trustee, a committee, and an association have, at best, existed intermittently throughout the life of the subdivision. The Illinois Secretary of State website shows that an association was formed in 2001 but dissolved in 2002. There is no evidence of any trustee, committee, or association having existed after 2008, nine years before this lawsuit was filed. Plaintiffs concede that no trustee, committee, or association existed since the Bostedts purchased their home.
¶ 7 The Bostedts agree that, because the declaration was recorded, they had constructive notice of the subdivision's restrictions. However, they maintain that they did not have actual notice of the restrictions and that they pursued the construction of their garage in good faith. The Bostedts took title to their property pursuant to a recorded deed, but that deed did not reference any restrictions. They did not receive a copy of the title policy at closing, which would have alerted them to the restrictions. Instead, the title policy was mailed to their home shortly after the closing, along with several other documents. They did not read the documents and filed them away.
¶ 9 On February 6, 2017, the Bostedts entered into a contract to construct a detached garage. By March 31, 2017, they had obtained the necessary approvals from Kane County, including a building permit. On April 8, 2017, they began construction. As detailed below, only one neighbor, John Graziadei, came to speak to the Bostedts about their garage. Graziadei did not take issue with it. The garage was to be built in the style of the main home, with the same color and pattern of brick in the front. The garage was also to have an identical rose window and complementary lanterns. It would store the Bostedts' collectors' cars, which included a Mustang, a Corvette, and a BMW. The contracted-for cost of the garage was $ 45,000, but the total cost to the date of the lawsuit was $ 50,000.
¶ 10 On April 26, 2017, Standlee returned home from Florida and noticed the construction. After speaking with a few neighbors, including Edelmann and Arass, Standlee wrote the Bostedts an anonymous letter urging them to cease construction or be subject to injunction proceedings.
¶ 11 The letter, dated May 1, 2017, stated:
The letter was signed "concerned neighbors" and provided no contact information.
¶ 12 The Bostedts received the letter May 5, 2017, via the United States Postal Service. According to them, this was the first they had heard of a restriction against detached garages. By that date, the garage was already substantially completed. The foundation was in place, the garage was fully framed, the roof deck was complete, roofing paper had been applied, and siding had been applied to "two elevations of the structure."
¶ 13 On May 6, 2017, plaintiffs sent a second anonymous letter, again signed "concerned neighbors" and providing no contact information. This time, the letter warned that (in plaintiffs' view) the county permit was not valid and would be "red flagged" that week.
To continue reading
Request your trial