Appellate Court Rejects Due Process Claims in Nuisance Case
The City of Chicago filed a lawsuit against the unknown heirs of the deceased owner of a single-family home claiming the property had been neglected and was an unsafe public nuisance. In City of Chicago v. Dzendrowski, an Illinois Appellate Court rejected claims by family members of the deceased owner that they were denied due process because they were not properly notified of the City's lawsuit.
After the City discovered numerous violations of the City Code including warped flooring, missing electrical and plumbing fixtures, and damage to the home’s exterior from decaying trees, it searched the property’s title records to attempt to locate the heirs of the deceased owner. The City found eight possible relatives, including the two individuals involved in this lawsuit, and for over a year, the City made numerous unsuccessful attempts to serve the individuals. Eventually, it sought permission from the court to serve notice in a newspaper.
At the first court hearing on the City's lawsuit, the court appointed a limited receiver to take all reasonable steps to remove the nuisances. After the hearing, two relatives of the deceased owner filed motions and argued they were not properly notified of the lawsuit. The circuit court denied the motions, allowed the limited receiver to remedy the issues with the property, and the City voluntarily dismissed the case.
The two relatives appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing, among other things, that their procedural due process rights were violated when the City voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the court denied the relative's motions but before they could file a counterclaim or otherwise defend against the merits of the lawsuit. The court rejected their claims, holding that the relatives had a 10-12 month period where they could have asserted a counterclaim or defense, but chose not to do so. The court said this was a reasonable time to defend against the allegations and held that their due process rights were not violated by the court's dismissal of the case.
Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment