No Case Law on D204 Land Purchase SUN 3/18

[gumby]

yeson321 said:

steckmom said:

And here is the what I think is the specific Illinois statute wording on the situation where the government decides not to purchase the land (thank you, Gumby):

If the plaintiff dismisses the complaint before the entry of the order by the court first mentioned in this subsection (a) or fails to make payment of full compensation within the time named in that order or if the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property by condemnation, the court shall, upon the application of the defendants or any of them, enter an order in the action for the payment by the plaintiff of all costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney fees paid or incurred by the defendant or defendants in defense of the complaint, as upon the hearing of the application shall be right and just, and also for the payment of the taxable costs.

(735 ILCS 30/10‑5‑70)

Please help me understand what this means in relation to Brach-Brodie and their request for compensation for the decreased land value. I can't follow the language above as to whether this case fits the statute (i.e., since SD 204 went through all of the proceedings and didn't abandon the property until the last possible moment based on the judgment, is this statute applicable).

Thanks!

It seems to me that we fall under (a). The statute doesn't authorize those kinds of damages. Maybe the SB is right in saying that BB won't get the damages they are seeking.

Again, though, I could be talking out my elbow.

Thoughts smom?

[steckmom]

gumby said:

yeson321 said:

Please help me understand what this means in relation to Brach-Brodie and their request for compensation for the decreased land value. I can't follow the language above as to whether this case fits the statute (i.e., since SD 204 went through all of the proceedings and didn't abandon the property until the last possible moment based on the judgment, is this statute applicable).

Thanks!

It seems to me that we fall under (a). The statute doesn't authorize those kinds of damages. Maybe the SB is right in saying that BB won't get the damages they are seeking.

Again, though, I could be talking out my elbow.

Thoughts smom?

I didn't interpret it because anyone's guess here is as good as mine. But I tend to agree with gumby that the statute does apply and that, perhaps the SB is right , those kinds of damages aren't authorized.

The usual qualifier--I really don't know. Just thought I'd throw the info out there.