Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Dept. of Public Works v. Drobnick

OPINION FILED MAY 21, 1958.

THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, APPELLEE,

v.

JOSEPH J. DROBNICK ET AL. — (JOSEPH J. DROBNICK, APPELLANT.)



APPEAL from the County Court of Lake County; the Hon. MINARD HULSE, Judge, presiding.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE DAVIS DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT:

This is an appeal from a judgment of the county court of Lake County in a condemnation proceeding instituted by the Department of Public Works and Buildings of the State of Illinois, as petitioner. Final judgment was entered upon a jury verdict fixing compensation at $4,800 for land taken and $385 for damages to land not taken. Joseph J. Drobnick, herein referred to as defendant, appealed from this judgment and the denial of his motion for a new trial.

On November 1, 1956, petitioner filed its suit to condemn an 80-foot strip across the front of two lots owned by defendants, for the purpose of widening Belvidere Road, also known as State Route 120, in Waukegan Township, Lake County. The property consists of two adjoining unimproved lots, each having a frontage on Belvidere Road of 299.5 feet, and a depth of approximately 466.5 feet. These lots are bounded by Walnut Avenue on the east and Chestnut Avenue on the west. Lot 1 is easterly of the common boundary line between such lots and lot 2 is westerly thereof.

An engineer of petitioner testified concerning the nature of the proposed improvement: Belvidere Road was to be widened into a four-lane highway for split traffic, east and west, and would gradually rise to overpass relocated Skokie highway to the west. The road section would consist of two 24-foot pavements with 10-foot shoulders, and a four-foot median strip with a two-foot walkway on each side of the traffic lanes. A new 22-foot blacktop frontage road would be installed between Chestnut and Walnut to furnish the subject property with access to Belvidere Road by way of Walnut Avenue on the east, and the Chestnut Avenue entrance thereto would be closed. The improvement would rise in grade from east to west, starting with the present Belvidere Road elevation at the easterly boundary of lot 1, and ascending to three feet at the boundary line between lots 1 and 2, and to 11 feet at the westerly boundary of lot 2.

Two real-estate appraisers testified on behalf of petitioner: Leslie Bamberg, who had 33 years of experience in this work testified that the subject property was zoned for residential purposes, was rolling and unimproved and part of its present grade was below that of Belvidere Road; that the property to the east and west was vacant; that a small house was located about 500 feet to the east and a motel further to the east; that a trailer court was situated on the opposite side of the street and a radio station, a tractor showroom and another motel in the area along Belvidere Road; that the highest and best use of the property, as zoned, was for residential purposes; and that he was of the opinion that the fair cash market value of each lot was $6,600, and the value of the land taken from each lot, $1,100. Theodore E. Paxton, a real-estate broker for 11 years, testified that the highest and best use of the property under present zoning was for residential purposes; and that he was of the opinion that the fair cash market value of lot 1 was $8,200, lot 2, $9,000, the land taken from lot 1, $1,200, and from lot 2, $1,500.

Petitioner then called the county clerk who testified, after reference to a zoning map, that the property was zoned residential, and rested its case in chief. However, at the reconvening of court on the following day, petitioner moved for leave to reopen its case to correct an error in testimony relative to zoning. Leave was granted over the objection of defendant, and the ensuing proof showed that the subject property had been rezoned from R-3 residential to light industrial in June, 1956, upon petition of defendant.

Petitioner's real-estate experts were recalled and expressed revised opinions of value based upon the less restrictive zoning. Paxton was of the opinion that the value of lot 1 was $10,600, lot 2, $11,200; the land taken from lot 1, $1,600, and from lot 2, $2,000. Bamberg testified that the value of lot 1 was $10,500, lot 2, $10,000, and the land taken from lot 1, $1,650, and from lot 2, $1,675.

The defendant testified on his own behalf that he had been a real-estate broker since 1936. And, after considerable testimony concerning the surrounding area, the availability of utilities and sewers, and the advantageous qualities of these particular lots, he was permitted to testify that he was of the opinion that the fair cash market value of each lot was $45,000; the land taken from each lot, $15,000; and that the damage to that part of lot 1 not taken was $10,000, and to that part of lot 2 not taken, $15,000. Defendant introduced other testimony as to the use of land in the area, and the availability of sewers and water.

Defendant also introduced evidence of the sale of two similar tracts of land. One, an unimproved tract with 133-foot frontage on Belvidere Road and a depth of 584.9 feet, was sold on contract in November, 1955, for a total price of $9,500. The contract provided for a down payment of $1,000, the balance to be paid at the rate of $100 a month with interest at 6 per cent on the unpaid balance. The other tract contained 5.5 acres, had a 260-foot frontage on Belvidere Road and was purchased by the defendant in June, 1956, for $15,000. Both tracts were zoned for residential purposes. Other offers of evidence concerning sales were rejected.

In rebuttal, Paxton testified that the taking and proposed improvement would result in no damage to the part of lot 1 not taken and would damage the part of lot 2 not taken in the sum of $265. Bamberg testified that due to the benefit of the proposed improvement, there would be no damage to the land not taken.

The jury, accompanied by defendant and his attorney, viewed the premises, and thereafter returned a verdict which fixed the compensation for the land taken from lot 1 at $2,400, found no damage to the part of lot 1 not taken, fixed the compensation for the land taken from lot 2 at $2,400, and assessed damages to that part of lot 2 not taken at $385.

Upon this appeal we have considered the many errors assigned by the defendant and shall first deal with the alleged error of permitting the reopening of petitioner's case. Petitioner, uninformed of defendant's recent rezoning of the property, at first proceeded under a misapprehension relative to its correct zoning. Upon learning of this, petitioner immediately took steps to present the true facts. The defendant was neither inconvenienced nor surprised, but rather sat back with full knowledge of the facts ready to take advantage of the inadvertent error of the county clerk and petitioner. His rights were not prejudiced by the court's ruling which allowed the petitioner to reopen its case on the second day of the trial, nor was there any reason for the court to order a new trial. We find that the trial judge acted within his discretion and followed sound administrative practice in permitting petitioner to reopen its case.

Defendant also complained that he was not permitted to cross-examine petitioner's experts with regard to possible uses not permitted under residential zoning. This ruling on initial cross-examination was based upon the erroneous assumption that the property was zoned residential. However, both real-estate experts were recalled after the light industrial zoning had been established and were further cross-examined without limitation. We therefore find no reversible error in the ruling on the prior cross-examination.

Defendant contended that the record does not sustain the verdict because the expert witnesses for the petitioner testified relative to property located in Warren Township while the subject premises are in Waukegan Township. It is true that the witnesses, in giving the legal description of the property, placed it in range 11 east rather than in range 12, where it is actually located. However, this obvious clerical error created no prejudice. The petition, verdict and judgment correctly described the premises, and it is clear from the record that the jury viewed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.