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.

12/13/89 In Re Petition of the Village of Kildeer To Annex Certain

December 13, 1989

IN RE PETITION OF THE VILLAGE OF KILDEER TO ANNEX CERTAIN


APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, SECOND DISTRICT

TERRITORY (The Village of Kildeer,

Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v.

Robert Schwake et al., Respondents-Appellants and

Cross-Appellees)

548 N.E.2d 654, 191 Ill. App. 3d 713, 139 Ill. Dec. 269 1989.IL.1932

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County; the Hon. Fred A. Geiger, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE McLAREN delivered the opinion of the court. REINHARD and WOODWARD, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE MCLAREN

The petitioner in these consolidated cases, the Village of Kildeer (the Village), sought to annex certain properties pursuant to the annexation provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 7-1-1 et seq.). The Village filed three annexation ordinances with the circuit court of Lake County, which in turn found the annexations valid. Certain affected property owners (the objectors) moved pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-1401) to vacate the prior orders validating the annexation ordinances. The trial court granted the motions to vacate, and the Village appealed to both this court (In re Petition of Village of Kildeer (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 262) and subsequently to the Illinois Supreme Court (In re Petition of Village of Kildeer (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 533). After the cause was remanded to the trial court, the Village filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss the annexation proceedings pursuant to section 2-1009 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-1009). At the same time, the objectors filed a motion pursuant to section 2-611 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 110, par. 2-611) seeking sanctions against the Village.

The trial court granted the Village's motion to dismiss the proceedings and also awarded the objectors their previously incurred deposition transcript costs. Subsequently, the trial court denied the objectors' section 2 -- 611 motion for sanctions and also denied the objectors' motion to amend their section 2 -- 611 motion. The objectors now appeal from the entry of both orders, and the Village cross-appeals from the trial court's award of deposition costs. At issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court's denial of the objectors' motions to amend their section 2 -- 611 motion and also the trial court's award of deposition costs in favor of the objectors. We reverse the trial court's determinations on both issues and remand for further proceedings on the objectors' section 2 -- 611 motion.

The facts surrounding the Village's annexation proceedings are set out in both of the previous opinions filed in these cases on review (In re Petition of Village of Kildeer (1987), 162 Ill. App. 3d 262, 265-67, aff'd (1988), 124 Ill. 2d 533, 536-42), and so only a short summary is necessary here. In February 1986, the Village enacted three annexation ordinances. Each ordinance sought to annex an area equal to approximately 10 acres but, if annexation of each of the three parcels of land had been successful, a much larger tract of land would have been effectively circumscribed by the newly annexed areas. Moreover, though each ordinance sought to annex less than 10 acres, more than 10 acres of the property of certain individual landowners would have been included in the total amount of property covered by the three ordinances. Such an annexation could not legally have been undertaken without each landowner's consent. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, par. 7-1-2; In re Petition of Village of Kildeer, 162 Ill. App. 3d at 277.) The Village filed the three annexation petitions, and each was assigned to a different circuit court Judge. Notification of the ordinances was published in the Chicago Sun-Times, even though the Village admitted that such notice is normally made in local newspapers.

In March 1986, different circuit court Judges separately approved each of the three ordinances, and a referendum on each petition was set for November 4, 1986 (see Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 24, pars. 7-1-4, 7-1-6). Before the referenda, in August 1986, the objectors, who are owners or trustees of affected properties, filed petitions in each case pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 110, par. 2-1401) seeking to vacate the three orders. All three orders were thereafter vacated, and the Village appealed in all three cases. The objectors cross-appealed from the findings in Nos. 86-MC-3 and 86-MC-4 that the Village had complied with statutory notice requirements. The three petitions were consolidated for appellate review.

On appeal, this court affirmed the trial courts' granting of the section 2 -- 1401 petitions to vacate in Nos. 86 -- MC -- 4 and 86 -- MC -- 2. We reversed and remanded with regard to No. 86 -- MC -- 3 in order that the Village might be allowed to file a response to the objectors' section 2 -- 1401 petition. We also reversed the trial court's determination in No. 86 -- MC -- 4 that the Village had complied with the statutory notice requirements. The cross-appeal in No. 86 -- MC -- 3 was not timely filed, and therefore, we did not rule 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.