Illinois Construction Law Blog : Illinois Construction Lawyer & Attorney : Foran Glennon Palandech Ponzi & Rudloff Law Firm : Chicago IL

Illinois farmers are a tough bunch.  So it's not surprising that as a pro se defendant and appellant, farmer Peter Schultz, was instrumental in allowing the court to deliver one of the nine cases in existence dealing with the Illinois Drainage Act (70 ILCS 605/1 et seq.) 

This act is important to anyone developing a parcel of land and many contractors.  It establishes the Drainage Districts in the State and also governs taxation and contracting and bidding on projects with the Districts.  It provides the process by which determinations regarding drainage from one parcel to the next are made, along with establishing a procedure for adjudicating issues involving drainage.

In Halpin v. Schultz, Doc. No. 3-06-0767 (3^rd Dist.) the appellate court was faced with a trial court's decision granting Mr. Schultz' neighbors the right to enter onto his land and install new drainage tiles.  The neighboring farm wanted to extend their drainage tiles beyond their property, connect them to Schultz' and thereby, arguably, change the course of drainage on their property.  Schultz argued that the tiles between the property were never connected, and shouldn't be connected.  This is important given that, in addition to excess water, many toxins from pesticides and sewage from livestock also end up in being transported through these types of tiles and can effect the quality of groundwater in the area and the growth of crops.

At trial, the plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence comporting with the Drainage Act's requirements that a dominant landowner seeking to extend and replace tiles on a subservient landowners property show that the tiles would then drain at an exit point off the property of the subservient landowner.  In other words, if the neighbors wanted to drain in the direction of Schultz' property, they were required to show that they would be draining "through" Schultz' property and that the water would exit into a proper ditch or culvert beyond Schultz' property.  They failed to introduce any evidence to that effect and the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision outright.

Additionally, the court noted the severe constitutional implications involved in letting one private land owner assert rights with regard to another individual's lands. 

• "The law does not favor the expropriation of private property for the public good without just compensation.  Even less attractive is the expropriation of private property for the private benefit of an adjoining property owner."

The judgment of the trial court was reversed.

Justice Holdridge dissented asserting that a different standard of review should be applied and framed the issue of this case, not as one addressing the interpretation of the Drainage Act, but of one regarding the trial court's determination of the evidence in competing testimony and felt that the trial judge did not create reversible error in his determination regarding the course of the natural drainage of the properties at issue.

Holdridge saw this case as a question of whether certain new improvements on portions of the neighbors land, namely the creation of a two-acre pond and the development of a housing division on a portion of the property had created a new "natural" flow of water where water that may previously not have traveled over Shultz' land.  However, addressing these questions under the act would require more time and effort than the plaintiffs may want to put into this matter.  And, without an attorney, perhaps Shultz was unequipped to properly raise these issues.

Developments, ponds, and farms aside, the act of construction on open land can raise a host of issues that, if not properly considered at the time of construction, can lead to a mess of litigation, which can be a headache, unless, of course, you know how to farm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

We've blogged at length about HB 2094 and the reintroduction of the Structural Work Act.  The action deadline for the bill has been extended to May 9.  It is likely, now that the fervor has died down that the bill is being held as a playing chip between differing factions in the House for getting some other legislation passed. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Illinois is certainly no stranger to the Condo Craze, a quick Google search for blogs on the topic in Illinois should put to rest any notions to the contrary.   There are plenty of interesting and responsible resources on the topic... and the law regarding the issues involved in condominium matters continues to grow.

A case touching on those matters and construction and development as well as architecture is the feature today.  Kirkpatrick v. Strosberg, Doc. Nos. 2-06-0724 and 02-06-0731 consolidated (April 16, 2008, 2^nd Dist.)

The plaintiffs were individuals who contracted to purchase luxury condominium units in Glen Ellyn.  The developer built the units and the plaintiff's moved in.

Some of the measurements of the completed luxury units did not turn out to comport exactly with the finished condos.  For example, depending upon the method in which one measures the square footage of the units, the units did not meet the advertised square footage, additionally, because alterations were necessary towards the end of the project, the ceilings on the top floor units measured eight feet, six inches and not nine feet as advertised in the original brochures.  One of the unit owners spent extra money having his bathroom reconfigured after the initial plans failed to put the pipes in the right places, and another owner measured his cabinetry installation in accordance with the nine foot specs and not the eight feet, six inch specifications.

The owners sued the developer for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, common-law fraud, and breach of contract.

There was a bench-trial on the matter and the trial court made findings in favor of the plaintiffs for the breach of contract claims, the common-law fraud and the consumer fraud claims involving the ceiling heights, but not the square footage issues.  The court also found that due to the nature of the contracts and the evidence presented by the plaintiffs there was damage, but the plaintiffs' evidence was insufficient and thus awarded only nominal damages of $100 each.  For the plaintiff with the bathroom plans, the court found fault at 50% with the plaintiff's architect, who was the plaintiff's agent, and at 50% with the developer, and thus reduced the damage award of $31,730 by half.  The court found the cabinet plaintiff's claims were barred by language in a rider to the contract by which the seller eschewed liability for improvements made by the buyer:

• "Seller shall not be required to review Buyer's architectural plans for the Buyer's improvements, and Seller shall not oversee Buyer's work on the premises. Seller makes no warranty whatsoever to Buyer that the premises and its components are complete or compatible with the Buyer's improvements. Buyers understand that all dimensions on the Seller's plans and specifications are approximate and subject to modification for actual field conditions. Field measurement is required to conform dimensions prior to ordering materials."

The trial court also awarded $83,000 to the plaintiffs in attorneys fees and $300,000 in punitive damages.

The appellate court upheld the trial court's determination that the square footage of the units, when measured properly, was not contradicted by any of the plaintiffs' evidence.  The court also upheld the $100 damage award finding that the plaintiffs' expert appraiser had taken cost approximations regarding damages from housing prices as they existed seven years after the actual date of sale for the units.

The court's statement of the black-letter law regarding the proper calculation of damages in a dispute over the breach of contract for the sale of real estate is familiar:

• "Damages, in a breach of contract for the sale of real estate, are calculated by the difference between the fair market value of the real estate on the day of the breach and the sale price contracted for by the purchasers."

The appellate then upheld the nominal damages award, finding again that there was no credible evidence on the matter given the appraiser's failure to estimate from the time of the sale and not the market value at the time of the case.  The court struck the $300,000 in punitive damages, citing a 1^st District opinion holding that nominal damages cannot provide a basis for awarding punitive damages.  The court also upheld the trial court's determination that the plaintiff and the defendants were 50% mutually responsible for the cost of the repair to the bathroom; affirmed the cabinetry decision; and awarded the attorneys fees.

Of additional note to appellate practitioners is the court's enforcement of Rule 341(e)(7) granting the defendants' motion to strike portions of the plaintiffs' reply brief, where the brief raised arguments in the reply that were not raised in their initial brief.

For designers: the court stood by the Architect's method of measuring the square footage of the condominiums as the distance from the outside wall to half of the demising wall rather than the plaintiffs' appraiser's "paint-to-paint" method of measuring from the inside wall to the inside wall.

The actual relief in this case would likely have been substantial had the appraiser computed comparable sales in accordance with the proper measure for damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As we continue to follow HB 2094, we are pleased to present the 1907 edition of the Structural Work Act.  We'd like to thank our friends over at the Cook County Law Library for having an in-tact copy of the 1908 Code.  The spine of the book can be seen to the left.

As you can see, not much is different between the HB 2094 proposed act and the 1907 version.  Except the penalties.  It used to be that the penalty for violation could cost an architect $25 to $200, now it would be a "petty offense."

In one of the cases that established the "good faith" exception to the exclusionary rule exercised for 4^th Amendment violations (United States v. Leon, 468 US 897 (1985)), Justice Blackmun delivered a concurring opinion addressing decisions based on  empirical data and offered some guidance regarding how the law should approach its own determinations when they are premised on empirical evidence:

    "As the Court's opinion in this case makes clear, the Court has narrowed the scope of the exclusionary rule because of an empirical judgment that the rule has little appreciable effect in cases where officers act in objectively reasonable reliance on search warrants. Because I share the view that the exclusionary rule is not a constitutionally compelled corollary of the Fourth Amendment itself, I see no way to avoid making an empirical judgment of this sort, and I am satisfied that the Court has made the correct one on the information before it. Like all courts, we face institutional limitations on our ability to gather information about "legislative facts," and the exclusionary rule itself has exacerbated the shortage of hard data concerning the behavior of police officers in the absence of such a rule. Nonetheless, we cannot escape the responsibility to decide the question before us, however imperfect our information may be, and I am prepared to join the Court on the information now at hand.
    "What must be stressed, however, is that any empirical judgment about the effect of the exclusionary rule in a particular class of cases necessarily is a provisional one. By their very nature, the assumptions on which we proceed today cannot be cast in stone. To the contrary, they now will be tested in the real world of state and federal law enforcement, and this Court will attend to the results. If it should emerge from experience that, contrary to our expectations, the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule results in a material change in police compliance with the Fourth Amendment, we shall have to reconsider what we have undertaken here. The logic of a decision that rests on untested predictions about police conduct demands no less."

If the Supreme Court of the United States can recognize that empirical evidence can lead to the need to reconsider its own rules then, when:

"It is the intent of the General Assembly that this Act is to be liberally construed to effectuate its beneficial purpose of protecting persons engaging in occupations of working in and about construction, repairing, alteration, or removal of buildings, bridges, viaducts, and other structures. This liberal interpretation exists so as to provide workers with a safe place to work and to afford relief to injured workers."

a state legislature drafting a law designed for a purpose (Worker Safety) should also revisit its law with empirical evidence and determine if the standards set out in that law can accomplish that goal.  The point is exacerbated by the fact that Structural Work Act was in effect from 1907 to 1995.  There should be plenty of data out there to determine if the standards and rules set forth by this statute should be updated.

The real question then is, have methods, means and ability of contractors and construction trades to provide for safety changed such that the standards should be augmented?  Is it sound law that the physical requirements of structures under the act should just read as they did in 1907, given that the industry has advanced?  What about OSHA requirments? 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

In MD Electrical Contractors, Inc., v. Fred Abrams (Il. Sup. Ct. 2008; Doc. No. 104000)  the plaintiff had sued under the theory of quantum meruit, stating that it had no contract with the defendant for electrical work performed on the defendant's home.  The defendant claimed that the Home Repair and Remodeling Act prohibited a suit by the plaintiff.  The circuit court had reasoned that quantum meruit was a legal theory that implied a contract where none existed.  Since the Home Repair and Remodeling Act was against the contract, and the subcontactor fell under it, the court could not imply a contract where the act would forbid such a contract.  The Appellate Court had disagreed and remanded the decision.  And now, the Supreme Court's decision has squarely stated that the act does not apply to subcontractors.

• The Home Repair and Remodeling Act applies only to those who contract directly with the Home Owner.

The court refused to address the intriguing issue of whether or not a sub-contractor could have any recourse in quantum meruit, or outside the Mechanic's Lien Statute.

In a strong-toned dissent, Justice Freeman points out that the complaint was insufficient on its face to offer the factual issues that the court relied upon in determining this matter.  The complaint asserts that MD Electrical was a sub-contractor, but there is no evidence of that fact anywhere in the record.  The dissent goes on to argue that the court did not have to reach the issue of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act's application to sub-contractors and should not have done so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Two new bills have been introduced to change the Condominium Property Act.

• HB 5037 - Will allow municipalities the ability to appoint receivers for distressed condominium properties and eventually have the properties sold.  Of interest is the definition of  "distressed condominium property":

"Distressed condominium property" means a parcel containing condominium units which are operated in a manner or have conditions which may constitute a danger, blight, or nuisance to the surrounding community or to the general public, including but not limited to one or more of the  following conditions:  

(A) the building is substantially unoccupied, or  has serious violations of any applicable local building code;  

(B) 60% or more of the condominium units are in foreclosure or are units against which a judgment of foreclosure was entered within the last 18 months;

(C) there has been a recording of more condominium units on the parcel than physically exist;

(D) any of the essential utilities to the parcel or condominium units is either terminated or threatened with termination;

(E) there is a delinquency on the property taxes for at least 60% of the condominium units; or

(F) the board of managers has not met within the last 12 months or is otherwise not functioning."

While the act gives the receiver the power to enter into a sales contract for the property with court approval, it appears to be silent regarding any applicable standards for pricing the sale, or achieving any form of FMV.   

• HB 5189 - In a possible response to a fluctuating real estate market, the bill would amend the act to statutorily provide that owners can rent up to 20% of the properties and that no condo board can enact rules to the contrary. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

            This is an interesting decision from the Northern District, the plaintiff, a surety company paid out on bonds to subcontractors when the bank that a general had deposited the money into took the funds the general had for payment to the subs to satisfy the general's obligations to the bank.

            The surety had three theories, conversion, a claim for a trust under the mechanic's lien act, and constructive trust.  The court found that because the surety was not suing as subrogee to the general, but rather as subrogee on the funds it paid out to the subs and because it had failed to allege that the bank had knowledge that the funds were for the subcontractors none of the counts could lie.  The Court also held that the bank was not implicated or obligated under the terms of the mechanic's lien act.

            While it initially looks like the failure of the plaintiff to properly plead the facts necessary to maintain the claim resulted in the dismissal, much of the language used implied that in order to maintain the actual claims, the surety should step in as subrogee to the general and not to the sub. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

            We haven't seen as much discussion as would seem to be merited by the provisions of the Illinois Contractor Prompt Payment Act (815 ILCS 603/1 et seq.).   This act has written itself into every construction contract in the State of Illinois (excepting public works, single family homes and buildings with fewer than 12 family units, of course).  This lack of constructive commenting is likely because the Act didn't become law until August 31, 2007.  However, from the comments and criticisms we have seen, there's an extremely important and sure to be contested issue that needs to be addressed:  Is it possible to "opt" out of the provisions of the Act?

The original version of the House Bill (HB 0743) that introduced what later became the Act included language at the beginning of Section 10 which read:

• "Construction contracts.  All construction contracts shall be deemed to provide the following unless they expressly exclude the provisions of this Act"

            This provision was the sole subject of Senate Committee Amendment No. 1, which was adopted by the Senate and the House and incorporated into the Act and struck the "unless they expressly exclude the provisions of this Act" language from the Act.

            This creates a strong argument for anyone wishing to claim that it was the express intent of the legislature to not allow parties to "opt" out of the act.  Combine this with the ideas that the public policy of the act was to ensure prompt payment to contractors and subs as defined by the Mechanic's Lien act; to allow contractors and subs an additional recourse should payments not be forthcoming; to shorten the time it takes for payment and approval of work, and we end up with a decent case that parties could end up contracting around the act for naught.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link