|
Post by eb204 on Feb 2, 2009 18:51:51 GMT -5
The intros on both are fairly good exec summaries. Brodie is much more emotional where Brach is more analytical. I am still reading thru them....My eyes keep glazing over. Basically. BB claim they had an offer for the parcel at 420k. SD came in with it's "Howie appraisal" of 257k. There were no further counteroffers as is customary. The SD then condemned causing them to lose their primo offer and spend vast sums defending themselves from the big bad SD......All our billing practices or sound and we would never try to over-bill....... Blah Blah Blah..... Is this 420K per acre? I haven't read it in its entirety, but if they had an offer for 420K/acre, then they should have taken it. 420K vs. 257K....wouldn't take me long to decide who to sell to.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Feb 2, 2009 19:46:03 GMT -5
That was one of the big "mysteries" Apparently Gladstone Builders had offered BB 420k/acre right before the SD did. IIRC they were asked to provide a the formal "offer" which turned out to be a premilnary letter from Gladstone, but never a formal offer. Now it is possible that due to the SD actions, Gladstone decided against proceeding. Also I believe Gladstone filed motions to be left out of the fracas.
|
|
|
Post by WeNeed3 on Feb 3, 2009 8:01:02 GMT -5
That would be interesting if Gladstone never really intended to build there but just gave them a cute letter to raise the stakes for BB. $420K would look pretty good to the jury. How convenient that Gladstone could not be brought in as a witness.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 13, 2009 12:49:11 GMT -5
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Apr 13, 2009 13:28:51 GMT -5
Quick tip: It downloads as .pdf.htm. Remame the extension to .pdf (remove the .htm) to make this readable by Acrobat.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Apr 13, 2009 13:54:01 GMT -5
This seems to from the 2005 ED case. Anyone know what the filing was? The wording is Plaintiff: Board of Education of Indian Prairie #204 Defendant: Hazel S. Brodie Trust et al. Case#: 2005 ED 0079 Filed Apr 6, 3009. "The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to strike except for the damage claims raised by defendant Brach. As to Brach's claims for damages, the damage claims of Brach and/or Brodie are outside the jurisdiction and scope of 735 ILCS 5/7-123 and are hereby dismissed without prejudice to file in a different proceeding, for the reasons stated by the Court in its ruling which are incorporated in this order. All other claims are subject to further hearing. This matter is continued to April 22, 2009 at 9:00 am for status in discovery schedule." I couldn't decipher the Judges name.... anyone know? The way I read it - the Court refused to squash Brodie's damage claims, but told Brach/Brodie that they should refile elsewhere as this is out ouside the scope and jurisdiction of ILCS 5/7-123 which is the compensation for damages for Eminent Domain action. This may mean some other statute has to be used for BB to claim damages - they can't, under this statute. ILCS 5/7-123 is below: "(735 ILCS 5/7-123) (from Ch. 110, par. 7-123) Sec. 7-123. Judgments. (a) If the plaintiff is not in possession pursuant to an order entered under the provisions of Section 7-105 of this Act the court, upon such report, or upon the court's ascertainment and finding of the just compensation where there was no jury, shall proceed to adjudge and make such order as to right and justice shall pertain, ordering that the plaintiff shall enter upon such property and the use of the same upon payment of full compensation as ascertained, within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court, and such order, with evidence of such payment, shall constitute complete justification of the taking of such property. Thereupon, the court in the same eminent domain proceeding in which such orders have been made, shall have exclusive authority to hear and determine all rights in and to such just compensation and shall make findings as to the rights of the parties therein, which shall be paid by the county treasurer out of the respective awards deposited with him or her as provided in Section 7-126 of this Act, except where the parties claimant are engaged in litigation in a court having acquired jurisdiction of the parties with respect to their rights in the property condemned prior to the time of the filing of the complaint to condemn. Appeals may be taken from any findings by the court as to the rights of the parties in and to such compensation paid to the county treasurer as in other civil cases. If in such case the plaintiff dismisses the complaint before the entry of the order by the court first mentioned in this subsection (a) or fails to make payment of full compensation within the time named in such order, or if the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property by condemnation, the court shall, upon the application of the defendants or any of them, enter such order in such action for the payment by the plaintiff of all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees of such defendant or defendants paid or incurred by such defendant or defendants in defense of the complaint, as upon the hearing of such application shall be right and just, and also for the payment of the taxable costs. (b) In case the plaintiff is in possession pursuant to an order entered under the provisions of Section 7-105 of this Act and if Section 7-111 of this Act is inapplicable, then the court, upon the jury's report, or upon the court's determination of just compensation if there was no jury, shall enter an order setting forth the amount of just compensation so finally ascertained and ordering and directing the payment of any amount thereof that may remain due to any of the interested parties, directing the return of any excess in the deposit remaining with the clerk of the court, and directing the refund of any excess amount withdrawn from the deposit by any of the interested parties, as the case may be. (Source: P.A. 83-707.) " I'm still digesting this..... Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Apr 13, 2009 14:12:09 GMT -5
I think the stuff below is the critical part:
"...or if the final judgment is that the plaintiff cannot acquire the property by condemnation, the court shall, upon the application of the defendants or any of them, enter such order in such action for the payment by the plaintiff of all costs, expenses and reasonable attorney fees of such defendant or defendants paid or incurred by such defendant or defendants in defense of the complaint, as upon the hearing of such application shall be right and just, and also for the payment of the taxable costs. ...
It allows for "costs, expenses and reasonale attorney's fees..." but no allowance for damages. I think this is why the damage claims got dismissed from this court. Some other court proceedings may be willing to listed, but the staute does not allow for it. That would set a precedent.
Other parts of the ED statute limit the amount that these can add up to, if my memory serves me right. Some of my posts from last year show the limit - I need to track them down.
Cheers.
|
|
player
Master Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by player on Apr 13, 2009 14:34:53 GMT -5
Gatormom helped me track down my earlier posts... thanks GM. The Attorneys fees are limited by 735 ILCS 30/10‑5‑110 to around $2.7M - which was known. No allowance for damages by law. BB has been claiming loss of property value between then (at $518K/acre from the jury award) to now as damages. Far as I know, not allowed - looks like the Judge looks at it the same way. There may be some other civil remedy that we don't know about. Would be interesting to see where BB files, if at all. I can repost my older analysis if people want to look at it.
Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by wvhsparent on Apr 13, 2009 15:00:51 GMT -5
The Judge is Dorothy French
|
|