No Case Law on D204 Land Purchase SUN 3/18

[rural]

d204mom said:

rural said:

The judge also understands that the school district is working with a fixed budget. The land came back almost double what the district was anticipating.

I'm in the "oh, crap" boat, too. If the damages come back that BB is a more financially suitable property, I as a taxpayer, would expect the SB to go in that direction.

Can we still go in that direction? Do both sides of BB want to sell to the SD? Weren't we ready to make a deal before the quick-take and one side decided to pull out at the last minute?

I don't see the AME closing going through tomorrow, though.

The district agreed to a valuation range of $300 - $600K an acre.

Jury award came back within that range.

After claiming repeatedly that we could and would pay up to $600K an acre, even offering to put $33 million in escrow to prove that we could and would pay that much (this was at the end of June), the "Oh, judge, we can't afford it" rings pretty hollow.

And if the BB attorneys bring up the fact that we are sitting on a mountain of $91 million dollars in excess operating funds, the "we can't afford it" mantra rings really hollow.

Yep, it will be very interesting over the next four weeks to find out where this will take us and how this judge will rule. Both sides of this fight have done some stupid things. I have no answer--or even guess at this point--for how it will play out.

[gumby]

rural said:

The judge also understands that the school district is working with a fixed budget. The land came back almost double what the district was anticipating.

I'm in the "oh, crap" boat, too. If the damages come back that BB is a more financially suitable property, I as a taxpayer, would expect the SB to go in that direction.

Can we still go in that direction? Do both sides of BB want to sell to the SD? Weren't we ready to make a deal before the quick-take and one side decided to pull out at the last minute?

I don't see the AME closing going through tomorrow, though.

I think the SB is stupid enough to try to ramrod the deal through. I don't know what to think of the NSFOC lawsuit, but I think I do support a TRO in this case just to prevent the SB from hurting itself anymore just to save some kind of face.

[Avenging Eagle]

gumby said:

rural said:

The judge also understands that the school district is working with a fixed budget. The land came back almost double what the district was anticipating.

I'm in the "oh, crap" boat, too. If the damages come back that BB is a more financially suitable property, I as a taxpayer, would expect the SB to go in that direction.

Can we still go in that direction? Do both sides of BB want to sell to the SD? Weren't we ready to make a deal before the quick-take and one side decided to pull out at the last minute?

I don't see the AME closing going through tomorrow, though.

I think the SB is stupid enough to try to ramrod the deal through. I don't know what to think of the NSFOC lawsuit, but I think I do support a TRO in this case just to prevent the SB from hurting itself anymore just to save some kind of face.

I agree with you. As I stated, because of their predictable and tunnel-visioned, arrogant nature, I believe the odds for them delaying or canceling the closing is at 3-1.

Tomorrow will be a horrible day if they go through with it. And only 3 days after the ides of March, for them to "commit suicide" as someone put it.

Et tu, Brute?

[macy]

avengingeagle said:

gumby said:

I think the SB is stupid enough to try to ramrod the deal through. I don't know what to think of the NSFOC lawsuit, but I think I do support a TRO in this case just to prevent the SB from hurting itself anymore just to save some kind of face.

I agree with you. As I stated, because of their predictable and tunnel-visioned, arrogant nature, I believe the odds for them delaying or canceling the closing is at 3-1.

Tomorrow will be a horrible day if they go through with it. And only 3 days after the ides of March, for them to "commit suicide" as someone put it.

Et tu, Brute?

I sure hope they delay the closing until we know what the BB end game $$ are. I'm not holding out much hope that "sanity" will prevail all of the sudden though.

AE- you are correct, if the closing goes through tomorrow it will be a very sad day for ALL of us in 204.

If BB damages come in high all our kids will suffer.

[macy]

d204mom said:

doctorwho said:

Of course when's the last time an entity filed a condemnation suit on a piece of property , won the verdict to buy the land, then turned down taking the property.

You forgot to add... "When the jury returned an award that was in the prenegotiated range set earlier."

That is a great question. I've been researching it all day and can't find a similar situation. Has anyone been able to find ANYTHING similar in a condemnation case ANYWHERE?

That's why I'm worried about the damages. The BB lawyers, like them or not, appear to know what they are doing.

I have a very bad feeling that the the district's attorneys are making the misguided assumption that the damages $$$ will be little to nothing.

If anything, I would have hoped they would have learned SOMETHING by now.

If they close on Eola and Molitor property tomorrow, we're screwed. The districts attorneys are so in over their head they've already drowned.

[gumby]

macy said:

d204mom said:

You forgot to add... "When the jury returned an award that was in the prenegotiated range set earlier."

That is a great question. I've been researching it all day and can't find a similar situation. Has anyone been able to find ANYTHING similar in a condemnation case ANYWHERE?

That's why I'm worried about the damages. The BB lawyers, like them or not, appear to know what they are doing.

I have a very bad feeling that the the district's attorneys are making the misguided assumption that the damages $$$ will be little to nothing.

If anything, I would have hoped they would have learned SOMETHING by now.

It very well may be a small amount of money. I haven't had the chance to look through the statutes.

But, if the SD is making the assumption that it's only on the hook for attorneys fees and there's no statute limiting it to that, then I'd be very worried that we'll start hitting BB guesstimate type numbers.

The SB needs to push off the signing is the bottom line.

[macy]

Gumby,

What is the precedent, if any, for a government entity that pursues eminent domain, acquires the land legally and walks away because the jury award was too high?

Sorry if I'm not using the correct legal terms.

Does this happen regularly? has it happened to a school district?

Can you offer any information? I've been looking all day to find an eminent domain case that was similar. I can't find anything.

I'm obviously not an attorney and don't know what to look for though.

I can only find information on damages relating to cases in which a partial amount of land was condemned. Nothing close to the 204 situation though.

[steckmom]

Here’s my quick research, mostly off the top of my head, legal analysis of the damages situation. First there is the Illinois Local Government and Government Employees Tort Immunity Act, which limits damages paid by municipalities and local governments. This case is not a tort, but the IL Supreme Court has held that the statute may apply to non-tort cases. From what I could tell though, the Immunity Act only provides only that municipalities are not liable for punitive or exemplary damages. I didn’t see anything else.

Second, to me it looks like under a traditional eminent domain proceeding, the government has the right to reject the land if the jury price is too high. However, it looks like there were a couple of federal cases out there that hold that the taking begins at the time the government tied up the land, not at the time the price was set. In other words, BB could have legitimate arguments that they are entitled to compensation for the land being tied up.

I don’t know, I’m not an expert, but the answer doesn’t look clear to me. I think BB has a case. Gumby, any other lawyers, or anyone that just knows, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

[gumby]

I'm unfortunately in the same boat as you. IP and M&A is my thing.

I'd be interested in knowing the answers as well.

[gumby]

steckmom said:

Here’s my quick research, mostly off the top of my head, legal analysis of the damages situation. First there is the Illinois Local Government and Government Employees Tort Immunity Act, which limits damages paid by municipalities and local governments. This case is not a tort, but the IL Supreme Court has held that the statute may apply to non-tort cases. From what I could tell though, the Immunity Act only provides only that municipalities are not liable for punitive or exemplary damages. I didn’t see anything else.

Second, to me it looks like under a traditional eminent domain proceeding, the government has the right to reject the land if the jury price is too high. However, it looks like there were a couple of federal cases out there that hold that the taking begins at the time the government tied up the land, not at the time the price was set. In other words, BB could have legitimate arguments that they are entitled to compensation for the land being tied up.

I don’t know, I’m not an expert, but the answer doesn’t look clear to me. I think BB has a case. Gumby, any other lawyers, or anyone that just knows, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

You've already said more than I know. Wish Icould be more helpful.

I was looking through the Illinois statutes very briefly and I think you're right aout the tort act applying only to punitives, etc. I can't seem to find anywhere that the damages are limited only to actual attorneys costs.

I know the SB is banking on that given the low dollar amount that they seem to have set aside. But, I can't find any statute that confirms it.

Should be in here or could lead you there:

www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2819&ChapAct=735%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B30%2F&ChapterID=56&ChapterName=CIVIL+PROCEDURE&ActName=Eminent+Domain+Act%2E

[doctorwho]

gumby said:

steckmom said:

Here’s my quick research, mostly off the top of my head, legal analysis of the damages situation. First there is the Illinois Local Government and Government Employees Tort Immunity Act, which limits damages paid by municipalities and local governments. This case is not a tort, but the IL Supreme Court has held that the statute may apply to non-tort cases. From what I could tell though, the Immunity Act only provides only that municipalities are not liable for punitive or exemplary damages. I didn’t see anything else.

Second, to me it looks like under a traditional eminent domain proceeding, the government has the right to reject the land if the jury price is too high. However, it looks like there were a couple of federal cases out there that hold that the taking begins at the time the government tied up the land, not at the time the price was set. In other words, BB could have legitimate arguments that they are entitled to compensation for the land being tied up.

I don’t know, I’m not an expert, but the answer doesn’t look clear to me. I think BB has a case. Gumby, any other lawyers, or anyone that just knows, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

You've already said more than I know. Wish Icould be more helpful.

I was looking through the Illinois statutes very briefly and I think you're right aout the tort act applying only to punitives, etc. I can't seem to find anywhere that the damages are limited only to actual attorneys costs.

I know the SB is banking on that given the low dollar amount that they seem to have set aside. But, I can't find any statute that confirms it.

Should be in here or could lead you there:

www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2819&ChapAct=735%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B30%2F&ChapterID=56&ChapterName=CIVIL+PROCEDURE&ActName=Eminent+Domain+Act%2E

Isn't Helm an eminent domain specialist ? Let's hope it's not another case of the SB firm in an area not their specialty as far as their guidance on what could be due.

[gumby]

I'm sure he must be and he probably knows. <I hope>

When it comes to this stuff, my opinion and guess is probably worth far less than anyone else's.

[steckmom]

doctorwho said:

gumby said:

You've already said more than I know. Wish Icould be more helpful.

I was looking through the Illinois statutes very briefly and I think you're right aout the tort act applying only to punitives, etc. I can't seem to find anywhere that the damages are limited only to actual attorneys costs.

I know the SB is banking on that given the low dollar amount that they seem to have set aside. But, I can't find any statute that confirms it.

Should be in here or could lead you there:

www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2819&ChapAct=735%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B30%2F&ChapterID=56&ChapterName=CIVIL+PROCEDURE&ActName=Eminent+Domain+Act%2E

Isn't Helm an eminent domain specialist ? Let's hope it's not another case of the SB firm in an area not their specialty as far as their guidance on what could be due.

I'm sure it is a case of the SB not getting proper guidance, They needed an eminent domain specialist on this case from the beginning.

[steckmom]

gumby said:

I'm sure he must be and he probably knows. <I hope>

When it comes to this stuff, my opinion and guess is probably worth far less than anyone else's.

Same here. I don't think anyone, except for the people who practice this type of law know this stuff. That's why the SB should have hired attorneys who do this sort of thing.

I hope they do for the NSFOC case, but just because they're hiring outside counsel, doesn't mean that outside counsel will know what they are doing.

[steckmom]

gumby said:

Should be in here or could lead you there:

www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=2819&ChapAct=735%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B30%2F&ChapterID=56&ChapterName=CIVIL+PROCEDURE&ActName=Eminent+Domain+Act%2E

Ah, there's some light reading.