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.

08/03/88 In Re the Department of Transportation (the Department of

August 3, 1988

IN RE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (THE DEPARTMENT OF


APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, THIRD DIVISION

Transportation, Plaintiff; Dennis Hoo Chung,

Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant and Appellant;

Lewis Andrews, Cross-Defendant and

Appellee)

527 N.E.2d 958, 173 Ill. App. 3d 730, 123 Ill. Dec. 320 1988.IL.1203

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Alexander P. White, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE McNAMARA delivered the opinion of the court. RIZZI and FREEMAN, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE MCNAMARA

This appeal arises from a condemnation suit by the Illinois Department of Transportation. Plaintiff Dennis Hoo Chung appeals from a decision of the trial court finding that defendant Lewis Andrews was entitled to the proceeds of the just compensation award in the amount of $10,000. The trial court found that defendant was entitled to the proceeds by virtue of an agreement whereby plaintiff granted defendant the right to the proceeds. On appeal, plaintiff claims that his ownership of the property at the time the condemnor took possession entitled him to the compensation award.

On August 18, 1985, plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant to purchase a parcel of improved real estate. The parties knew that a certain portion of the sale property would be condemned by the State but neither party knew the precise boundaries of the contemplated taking. The piece of property that was condemned subsequent to the parties' agreement is known as "Parcel 0001." In 1963, the State condemned a triangular piece of land adjacent to parcel 0001.

Plaintiff had previously rented the property he intended to purchase and a large sign related to his business (the Buy Low sign) was located on the southeast corner of the property. The base of the sign was located on the property defendant was selling to plaintiff, but the top of the sign overhangs onto the property previously taken by the State. The August 18, 1985, contract included the following provision:

"Seller warrants that he has not sold the property on which the Buy Low free-standing sign now sits (Southeast corner of property)."

Plaintiff's broker-agent added this language to the contract to ensure that defendant had not sold to the State the property on ...


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.