Village of Arlington Heights v. National Bank of Austin
| Decision Date | 09 June 1965 |
| Citation | 53 Ill.App.3d 917,369 N.E.2d 502,12 Ill.Dec. 5 |
| Parties | , 12 Ill.Dec. 5 VILLAGE OF ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, a Municipal Corporation, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NATIONAL BANK OF AUSTIN, Trustee under Trust Agreement dated |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Jack M. Siegel, Chicago, for petitioner-appellant.
Righeimer, Righeimer & Martin, Chicago (Frank S. Righeimer, Jr., and Leo N. Cinquino, Chicago, of counsel), for defendants-appellees.
This is an appeal by the petitioner, the Village of Arlington Heights (hereinafter Arlington Heights), from an order of the circuit court dismissing its petition to condemn a certain 10 acre tract of land for the purposes of water retention and flood control.
The real estate in question is located contiguous to but outside of the corporate limits of the village of Arlington Heights. Its legal and equitable owner is the National Bank of Austin (hereinafter National Bank), acting as trustee of Trust No. 4077 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 29, par. 8.31), and the beneficiary of this land trust is James V. Insolia.
On December 27, 1974, the village manager of Arlington Heights sent a letter to Insolia in which he stated that Arlington Heights was interested in purchasing the 10 acres and would be willing to pay $46,000 for this property. After receiving no response to this offer, the village manager sent a second letter to Insolia on January 23, 1975. In this communication he stated that Arlington Heights was interested in procuring the property "as part of the extensive flood control program which the village is embarking upon," and he reiterated the offer of $46,000. In the second letter the manager also stated that he would recommend to the Arlington Heights' board of trustees that condemnation proceedings be instituted if he did not receive Insolia's reply to the proposal prior to February 3, 1975.
On February 3 petitioner's board of trustees adopted an ordinance which provided for the acquisition of fee simple title to the 10 acres and which declared that this real estate was to be used as a water detention facility. The ordinance also authorized the village manager and village attorney to submit an offer of $46,000 to the owner and stated that in the event this offer was not accepted within 10 days of the date of the ordinance, Arlington Heights would file an eminent domain suit to acquire title to this property. Allegedly, no offers were communicated to either the National Bank or Insolia subsequent to the enactment of this ordinance.
On February 28, 1975, Arlington Heights filed a petition to condemn the 10 acres, naming the National Bank and Insolia as defendants. This petition alleged that it was desirable to procure this tract for a water detention facility which was necessary for the implementation of the village's flood control program; that it had been determined by village ordinance that it was necessary to acquire fee simple title to this property in order to accomplish the aforementioned purpose; and that eminent domain proceedings should be instituted if petitioner failed to agree with the party in interest as to compensation. The petition further alleged that Arlington Heights had been unable to come to terms with the National Bank or with Insolia as to the price to be paid for the 10 acre tract.
In response, defendants filed a traverse and motion to dismiss. This pleading denied the allegations of the petition to condemn and asserted that the petition should be dismissed for the following reasons: (1) Arlington Heights was without legislative authority to acquire the 10 acre tract for the purposes set forth in the petition; (2) the taking was not for a public purpose; (3) the taking was not authorized by a valid ordinance; (4) the 10 acre tract was not necessary for the purposes for which it was sought; (5) the taking was excessive; and (6) no bona fide attempt to agree with defendants on the question of compensation was ever made by Arlington Heights.
Subsequent to the filing of this motion, defendants propounded certain interrogatories to the petitioner. In one of its answers Arlington Heights admitted that it had directed an appraiser to make an appraisal of a 20 acre tract which included the 10 acres involved in this matter. This appraisal was dated November 30, 1974, was in petitioner's possession prior to the time the village manager made his first offer of $46,000 to Insolia and indicated that each acre had a value of $6,100. However, the appraiser indicated that his valuation of the property was based on his examination of the 20 acres as a whole and that any attempt to use certain portions of his appraisal, without reference to the entire tract, would result in the appraisal being invalidated.
Petitioner stated in response to another interrogatory that it believed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alfieri v. CSX Corp.
...of Palatine (1980), 89 Ill.App.3d 630, 636, 44 Ill.Dec. 795, 411 N.E.2d 1161 and Village of Arlington Heights v. National Bank of Austin (1977), 53 Ill.App.3d 917, 920, 12 Ill.Dec. 5, 369 N.E.2d 502. The trial court did not make a specific finding from which appellee should have appealed, b......
-
Colmar, Ltd. v. FREMANTLEMEDIA N. AMERICA INC.
...of Education, 192 Ill.App.3d 1093, 1099, 140 Ill.Dec. 178, 549 N.E.2d 829 (1989); Village of Arlington Heights v. National Bank of Austin, 53 Ill.App.3d 917, 919-20, 12 Ill.Dec. 5, 369 N.E.2d 502 (1977). It is well-established that parties to a contract do not stand in a fiduciary relations......
-
City of Chicago v. Airline Canteen Service, Inc.
...Dist. 1977), 47 Ill.App.3d 101, 5 Ill.Dec. 480, 484, 361 N.E.2d 803, 807, and Village of Arlington Heights v. National Bank (1st Dist. 1977), 53 Ill.App.3d 917, 12 Ill.Dec. 5, 7-8, 369 N.E.2d 502, 504-505, in support of their position. None of these cases involved an interlocutory appeal un......
-
Preferred Meal Systems, Inc. v. Guse
...Cleys v. Village of Palatine (1980), 89 Ill.App.3d 630, 44 Ill.Dec. 795, 411 N.E.2d 1161; Village of Arlington Heights v. National Bank (1977), 53 Ill.App.3d 917, 12 Ill.Dec. 5, 369 N.E.2d 502. Consequently, we hold that the circuit court erred in not enjoining Guse from competing with Pref......