Eminent Domain; Prescriptive Easements

The Village of Round Lake v Amann, 311 Ill App 3d 705, 725 NE2d 35, 244 Ill Dec 240 (2nd D 2000).

Facts: The Amann and Pittelkow families (Homeowners) possessed a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to their homes across the adjacent property of a developer. The Village of Round Lake (Village) condemned the easement to convert the property into a public road that would act as a driveway for the homeowners, and support a residential community being built by the developer. Homeowners filed a traverse and motion to dismiss, stating that (1) the Village lacked authority to acquire the property, and (2) the Village's actions did not serve a valid public purpose.

The language of the Village's complaint asserted it was seeking to acquire a "public right-of-way." The homeowners argued current legislation authorizes the Village to acquire "property," and that "public right-of-way" is not a valid property interest, thus precluding the Village from the easement. The homeowners also argued the condemnation proceedings lacked a true public purpose because the action primarily benefited the developer of the adjacent property.

The trial court held the term "right-of-way" adequately described a property interest for the purposes of the action, and that the Village acted towards a legitimate public purpose. In addition, the trial court held the homeowners held a nonexclusive easement, and that nominal damages of $50 represented the valuation of the taking of the easement. The homeowners appealed.

Holding: Affirmed. A municipality can only exercise those eminent domain powers granted to it by the legislature. While legislation allows the condemnation of property interests only, the term "right-of-way" is a type of easement, and an easement is a valid property interest. Therefore, the Village acted within its necessary eminent domain authority because the complaint adequately described the property interest taken.

The Village's eminent domain action served a valid public purpose because the proposed roadway will be accessible to all persons wishing to use it. Although the construction of the road will principally benefit the land developer, it is not a bar to a finding of a legitimate public purpose. "The potential private benefit to [the developer] does not alter the public nature of the right-of-way."

The valuation of a taking seeks to make the owner of the condemned property whole. The trial court's valuation of the taking measured the value of the homeowners' easement before and after the taking. The Court found this method of valuation to be clearly erroneous and held a more representative valuation would consider the value of the homeowners' adjacent property before and after the taking. To accomplish this task, the Court weighed the rights held by the homeowners in the easement. As the easement was nonexclusive, the homeowners' sole right was the ability to gain access to the property. After the taking, this right remained intact. The increased traffic and loss of seclusion was not a compensatory injury. Therefore, since the homeowners enjoy all rights after the taking that they enjoyed before the taking, the nominal damage award was appropriate.

© ATG atgc1000vol24

 

Print this page