In the Zone: Court Rejects "Equitable Estoppel" Claim of Property Owner and more...

In the Zone: Court Rejects "Equitable Estoppel" Claim of Property Owner

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a municipality in a case brought by a property owner challenging the municipality's zoning decisions relating to the owner's commercial uses of property zoned in a Conservation zoning district. Deepe v. Village of Swansea Planning & Zoning Board.

The owner of two parcels of property applied for a zoning compliance certificate and construction permit to operate a commercial business on land zoned in the Conservation district. Over several years, the owner applied for and received permits and permission from the municipality to operate his business. After neighbors complained about the operation of the lawncare and storage businesses on the two parcels, the municipality notified the owner that his uses were nonconforming and he needed to bring his operations into compliance with the zoning regulations. The owner appealed the order to the zoning board, which ruled in favor of the municipality. He then appealed to the circuit court, which ruled in favor of the owner with respect to one of the parcels, finding that the municipality was "equitably estopped" from enforcing its regulations. However, the court found in favor of the municipality with respect to the second parcel. Both parties appealed to the Appellate Court.

On appeal, the Appellate Court reversed the trial court's ruling in favor of the owner on his equitable estoppel claim. The Court first determined that the two parcels were zoned in the Conservation district, and the owner never applied for a rezoning to a more appropriate district. Second, the owner knew and even acknowledged that the Conservation district did not allow a storage business so he could not rely on any acquiescence by the municipality. Third, the Court acknowledged that while the municipality could have been more forceful in its enforcement, "slow enforcement" would not support an estoppel claim. In sum, the Court found in favor of the municipality, holding that the owner could not establish an "equitable estoppel" claim for its use of either parcel.

There was a dissenting opinion that would have ruled in favor of the property owner on his equitable estoppel claims based on the actions of municipal officials and employees over the years with respect to the owner's uses.

Court Upholds Municipality's Administrative Adjudication Fine for Overweight Trucks

In Solano v. City of Chicago, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld a home rule municipality's authority to use its administrative adjudication hearing system and fine drivers of overweight trucks in an amount in excess of $250.00. First, the Court acknowledged that the Illinois Supreme Court in Cammacho v. City of Joliet had previously held that home rule governments could use administrative hearings to adjudicate moving offenses and reportable violations. Second, the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that section 11-208.3 of the Illinois Vehicle Code restricts municipalities from imposing a fine of more than $250.00 for certain standing, parking, and other violations, finding that overweight trucks were not listed in the category of offenses identified in that section of the Code. As a result, the Court upheld the municipality's issuance of the fine against Solano.

Abandonment Statute Does Not Require Proof of Delivery or Receipt of Notice

An Illinois Appellate Court recently interpreted the abandonment procedures of the Illinois Municipal Code (Code), holding that a municipality does not have to prove actual delivery or receipt of notice to all parties with a record interest in order to obtain a judicial deed under section 11-31-1 of the Code. Village of Downers Grove v. Beckham.

A municipality filed a petition with the court under section 11-31-1 of the Code to request that the court declare a property abandoned and issue a judicial deed to the property as well as an order of demolition. The municipality argued that the property was in disrepair and unfit for occupancy, as well as dangerous and unsafe. The petition indicated that notices were sent by mail to all named defendants advising them of the court action. The owner of record executed a waiver of rights to challenge the petition. However, another defendant (Lakeview) with a security interest in the property objected to the petition based on notice deficiencies. After the municipality amended its petition and served notice by certified mail, Lakeview again objected to the petition on notice grounds. The circuit court ultimately granted the municipality's petition and issued a judicial deed for the property.

Lakeview appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in issuing the judicial deed because the municipality failed to establish that notice was actually delivered to or received by all interested parties. The municipality argued that the statute does not require proof of delivery, and the Appellate Court agreed, holding that section 11-31-1(d) of the Code does not condition the notice's effectiveness on actual delivery or receipt. Instead, the Code only requires the municipality to send the notice in the required manner - i.e., by certified or registered mail. As a result, the Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's issuance of the judicial deed.

Supreme Court Says Government Not Liable to Pay Owner Fair Market Value in Tax Foreclosure Sale

In a 9-0 opinion (with a couple of concurring opinions), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a government that forecloses and sells property for delinquent property taxes is not responsible to pay the owner the difference between the sale price and the hypothetical fair market value of the property. Pung v. Isabella County.

Three years ago, the Supreme Court held that a government that forecloses and sells property for delinquent property taxes may be liable to return to the owner any surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure sales (i.e., the difference between the sales price and the taxpayer's debt). Tyler v. Hennepin County, 598 U. S. 631 (2023).

In today's case, the question before the Supreme Court went a step further - what if the sale price falls below the property's hypothetical fair market value, would the government be responsible for paying the difference to the owner as "just compensation" under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause? Yesterday, the Supreme Court said no, holding that the proper baseline for determining compensation under the Takings Clause is the price obtained in the tax sale so long as the sale was fairly conducted. The Court also held that the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause does not require the government to return the difference between the sale price and fair market value of the property that was sold. In this case, the Court held that the county was obligated to pay the surplus proceeds to the owner, but was not liable to pay more than what the county sold the property for at its tax sale auction. The opinion concluded with the following:

The Pung family lost its property because it failed to pay its taxes. The Fifth Amendment protects the family’s right to surplus proceeds from the tax sale, not compensation for the property’s fair market value. The Eighth Amendment offers no greater protections.

So, when a government forecloses and sells property for delinquent taxes, (1) it must return any surplus proceeds from the sale (the difference between the sale price and the taxpayer's debt) but (2) is not required to pay more than what the government sold the property for even if the fair market value of the property exceeds the sale price.

Citizen Was Not Entitled to Litigation Costs in Lawsuit Against PAC

A citizen filed two appeals with the Public Access Counselor of the Attorney General's office (PAC) claiming a public body violated the Open Meetings Act (OMA). After the PAC had still not issued a decision two years later, the citizen sued the PAC claiming it violated the OMA by not resolving his appeals within 60 days as provided by section 3.5 of the OMA. Within a week of being served with the lawsuit, the PAC issued non-binding determinations resolving the two appeals and finding the public body in violation of OMA. The citizen filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss one of his claims seeking a court order mandating the PAPACC to respond, acknowledging that claim was now "moot." However, the citizen also filed a motion seeking litigation costs from the PAC under section 3 of the OMA. The trial court denied his request and he appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court examined the OMA and determined that the PAC was not a proper defendant to a lawsuit to enforce the OMA under section 3 of the OMA. The Court interpreted the enforcement provision to apply to public body defendants and their alleged violations of the OMA, and not to the PAC's compliance with the statutory deadlines to respond to appeals, because the PAC is not a "party" under the enforcement statute when a citizen files an appeal of a public body's decision or actions with the PAC. As a result, the Court held that the citizen was not entitled to recover his litigation costs against the PAC for its violation of the statutory deadline required by section 3.5(e) of the OMA. Pal v. Office of the Public Access Counselor.

Municipal Minute