In the Zone: Appellate Court Upholds Dismissal of Village’s Claims Related to Annexation Agreements
An Illinois Appellate Court dismissed a lawsuit filed by a municipality asking the court to enforce terms in annexation agreements relating to a land donation from a developer and university foundation. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Northern Illinois University Foundation.
In 1999, the Village and Northern Illinois University
Foundation (Foundation) entered into an annexation agreement to construct a
Northern Illinois University (NIU) branch in exchange for annexing 342 acres
into the Village. The agreement stated if a certain 20-acre parcel (the old
parcel) was not developed as a NIU branch within ten years, the parcel would be
donated to the Village. In 2005, the Village, Foundation, and a developer
entered into a second agreement. This agreement amended certain provisions of
the 1999 agreement including a provision that the Foundation would exchange the
old parcel to the developer in exchange for the developer deeding a different
parcel to NIU (the new parcel).
In 2021, after NIU failed to build a branch on the new
parcel, the Village sued to demand the Foundation donate the new parcel to the
Village. The trial court dismissed the Village’s lawsuit, finding that the 2005
agreement was an amendment to the 1999 agreement that continued its terms
except for the provisions related to donations, and the 2005 agreement did not
obligate the Foundation to donate any parcel to the Village. The trial court
also dismissed the Village’s claim for unjust enrichment because the statute of
limitations had passed.
On appeal, the Appellate Court found the two agreements
clear and unambiguous. The Appellate Court found that the 2005 Agreement had express provisions that stated it
was the complete agreement of the parties, and because the 2005
Agreement had no requirement for the Foundation to donate the new parcel to the
Village, there was no basis for the Village to
receive a land donation. Further, the Appellate Court rejected the Village’s
claim that the developer was bound to the land donation terms of the 1999
agreement because the Village admitted in a court filing that the 2005
agreement superseded the prior terms. Finally, the Appellate Court rejected the
Village’s argument that the Court’s decision violated the public interest
element of annexation agreements because the Village did not previously raise that
issue before the trial court.
Post Authored by Daniel Lev, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment