Local Government Law

Defendant Village passed ordinance establishing a special service area in order to create a wastewater treatment system and facility. Plaintiff Objectors submitted petition containing signatures of owners of record and electors in the special service area who opposed the proposal. Property Tax Code provides that if a petition signed by at least 51% of the electors residing within special service area and by at least 51% of owners of record of land included within its boundaries file petition objecting, then special service area shall not be created. After bench trial, court found that Objectors had collected requisite number of signatures. Multiple owners of property, whether individual or institutional, should each be counted as "owners of record" to determine total number. As to property owned by a living trust, the Court erred in counting as valid the signature of a beneficiary, who was the wife of the trustee; thus, that signature should be excluded, so that total number of signatures collected was 618, which was less than the requisite 619 signatures, given that total number of owners of record was 1216.

Plaintiff paid delinquent taxes on property and obtained a tax certificate, but tax deed had not yet been issued at time of demolition of property. Plaintiff did not acquire title until county clerk issued tax deed, thus was not entitled to damages equal to difference in market value of property before and after demolition, but instead to compensatory damages that would restore him to position he was in before loss, which was amount of taxes he paid on property. City should have given Plaintiff prior notice of demolition per Municipal Code requirement of notice to holder of tax lien certificate.

Plaintiff filed condemnation action against Defendants in 1999, seeking to take 204 acres of land in Naperville. Eight years later, jury found just compensation for taking was $10.725 million, based on fair market value of property in 1999. Court properly entered summary judgment for Plaintiff in finding that Plaintiff engaged in good-faith negotiations, as Plaintiff was not required to immediately offer the full amount of the highest appraisal it received, and its failure to do so does not show lack of good faith. Landowner cannot be denied just compensation on ground of his or her "fault" for length of condemnation proceeding absent abusive litigation tactics interfering with court's functioning. Remanded for court to hear evidence on whether jury's verdict provided just compensation, i.e. value of property on date of taking

(Court opinion corrected 5/1/10.) Court properly characterized Lake Shore Associates as large entity with substantial profits and assets, which allowed it to easily absorb loss of its pre-development expenditures of $272,022.18. Purchase price of property is a factor that may be considered in determining substantiality, but only those expenditures made in good-faith reliance on prior zoning classification are included in this determination. Because property here was bought 26 years before zoning classification was enacted, its purchase was not in reliance on classification, thus purchase price was properly excluded from consideration. Request for writ of mandamus was properly denied, as Lake Shore Associates' pre-development expenditures were not sufficiently substantial, and it thus had no vested right to develop property per zoning classification.