River Plaza Homeowner's Association v. Healey

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 1st District Appellate » 2009 » River Plaza Homeowner's Association v. Healey

State: Illinois

Court: 1st District Appellate

Docket No: 1-07-1281 Rel

Case Date: 03/16/2009

Preview:FIRST DIVISION March 16, 2009

No. 1-07-1281

THE RIVER PLAZA HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation,

) ) ) ) Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) v. ) ) LORI T. HEALEY, COMMISSIONER, ) DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ) DEVELOPMENT, the CITY OF CHICAGO, an ) Illinois Municipal Corporation, RSL BUILDING ) CORPORATION, an Illinois Corporation, and 405 ) N. WABASH PARKING CONDOMINIUM, an ) Illinois Not-For-Profit Condominium Association, ) 403 N.WABASH LLC., a Delaware Limited ) Liability Company, and WATERTON RIVER ) PLAZA, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability ) Company, ) ) Defendants-Appellees. )

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.

No. 06 CH 2616

Honorable Bernetta D. Bush, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE ROBERT E. GORDON delivered the opinion of the court: The board of directors of the River Plaza Homeowner's Association brought

No. 1-07-1281 this suit to stop the proposed construction of an adjacent multifamily condominium building, which the board claimed would interfere with easements belonging to the homeowners. On February 16, 2007, the circuit court of Cook county dismissed this suit, on the ground that the board of directors lacked standing to bring this suit on behalf of the homeowners. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm, as modified. BACKGROUND The plaintiff named in the complaint is the River Plaza Homeowner's Association (the Association), a homeowners' association of the owners of residential condominiums at 405 North Wabash in Chicago, Illinois. The condominium building at 405 North Wabash is part of a planned development, that was approved by the Chicago city council in 1974. The planned development was for property located at both 403 and 405 North Wabash. The complaint was filed by the Association's board of directors (the board). The defendants in this case include 403 N. Wabash LLC (403 N.Wabash), RSL Building Corporation (RSL) and Waterton River Plaza, LLC (Waterton). These three defendants (the developer defendants) planned to develop a new residential building, at 403 North Wabash Avenue, located west of the 2

No. 1-07-1281 Association's condominium building. Defendant 405 N. Wabash Parking Condominium (Wabash Parking) is the owner and operator of an underground parking garage, located beneath the Association's condominium building. Defendant W abash Parking also owns the plaza at 403 North Wabash, where the developer defendants intend to build. In 2005, defendant Wabash Parking granted air rights and easements to defendant 403 N.Wabash, in order to construct the proposed building. Defendant Lori T. Healey was sued in her capacity as the then-current commissioner of the Department of Planning and Development, for the City of Chicago. Former Commissioner Denise M. Casalino had issued a letter on October 19, 2005, approving the proposed building as conforming to the 1974 planned development. Claiming that the project was wrongfully approved, the board sued both the commissioner and the City of Chicago (the city defendants). Procedural History The board filed its first complaint on February 7, 2006, and its second amended complaint on October 27, 2006. The trial court ordered defendants to answer or otherwise respond to the second amended complaint by November 27, 2006. On November 27, 2006, defendants 403 North Wabash and RSL moved to 3

No. 1-07-1281 dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2006)) on the ground that plaintiff had failed to state a cause of action, and pursuant to section 2-619 on the ground that the board lacked standing (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2006)). Defendant Wabash Parking joined the motion filed by defendants 403 North Wabash and RSL; and it also moved to dismiss plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief on the ground that the complaint failed to allege an inadequate remedy at law.1 The city defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 for failure to state a cause of action. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2006). Defendants 403 North Wabash and RSL joined the motion of the city defendants. Defendant W aterton moved to dismiss pursuant to section 2-603(a) on the ground that the second amended complaint failed to contain a plain and concise statement of the cause of action against it. 735 ILCS 5/2-603(a) (West 2006). On February 14, 2007,2 the trial court heard argument on all the dismissal

In its motion, defendant Wabash Parking did not state whether it was moving pursuant to section 2-615 or section 2-619. 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (W est 2006). The transcript of this proceeding states that it occurred on February 14, 2007; and the appellate brief of the city defendants also states that the proceeding occurred on February 14. However, the city defendants' notice of cross-appeal states that the trial court's oral ruling was issued on February 15, 2007; and plaintiff's index to its appendix states that the proceeding occurred on February 16, 2007. In our opinion, we use the date on the transcript. 4
2

1

No. 1-07-1281 motions. In the end, the trial court dismissed the entire suit on the ground that the board lacked standing to bring it. However, before making this global ruling, the trial court made individual rulings on the other motions before it. First, the trial court denied the city defendants' section 2-615 motion to dismiss counts I, II and III, which were the only counts against them. 735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2006). Second, the trial court dismissed without prejudice counts IV, V, VI, VII and VIII for being insufficiently pled. (Counts IV and VI were against defendants RSL and 403 North Wabash; count V was against Wabash Parking alone; and count VII was against RSL, 403 North Wabash, and Wabash Parking.) Third, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss count IX. Last but not least, the trial court stated that it was dismissing the whole suit pursuant to section 2-619 based on lack of standing, and the trial court asked the city defendants if they wanted to join the motion, which of course, they did. 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2006). The written order, dated February 16, 2007,3 stated first that the city
3

In this opinion, we will use the date of February 16, when referring to the written order. The file stamp on the order appears to state February 16, 2007; both plaintiff's table of contents to its appendix and its table of contents to the record state that the order was filed February 16, 2007; and the city defendants' notice of cross-appeal states the same. However, plaintiff's notice of appeal and the notice of cross-appeal by defendants RSL and 403 North Wabash state that the order was filed February 15, 2007. 5

No. 1-07-1281 defendants' section 2-615 motion to dismiss counts I, II and III was denied (735 ILCS 5/2-619 (W est 2006)); that counts IV through VIII were dismissed without prejudice; and that the motion to dismiss count IX was denied. The order next stated that all the defendants joined in the section 2-619 motion, that this motion was granted, and that the entire suit was therefore dismissed with prejudice. 735 ILCS 5/2-619 (West 2006). On M arch 15,2007, plaintiff moved the trial court (1) to reconsider its February 16, 2007, order; and (2) to clarify whether the board would have standing in the future, if the board obtained consent to sue from two-thirds of the homeowners, as provided in the Association's bylaws. During the prior argument on February 14, the trial court had orally stated "once the members, the two-third votes, give you the authority to act then you do have standing." In their briefs in response to plaintiff's motion to reconsider, defendants did not argue that the Association would be barred from future suit, if it obtained two-thirds consent. On M ay 10, 2007, the trial court heard argument on plaintiff's motion to reconsider, and issued a written order denying it. At argument, the trial court orally explained its prior ruling: "Now, you say, well, nobody has said that they [the 6

No. 1-07-1281 homeowners] don't want [the suit]. They haven't come to the Board and say, don't sue. Well, that may be true. And if that is the case, all the Board had to do is present the lawsuit to the people and let them vote on it. And then the Court and the bylaws, in my view, would be effectuated. I don't see this as a big issue of depriving people of their right to make a suit because if it's something that they want to do, they can do it. They're not precluded. They just have to get two-thirds votes. *** So my answer is this. M y judgment regarding the procedural issue was pursuant to 2619. It was a final judgment on the merits of the question of whether or not you have standing. That is an appealable issue because it defeats your purpose to bring this lawsuit in the manner that you have brought it and it states that in order

Download River Plaza Homeowner's Association v. Healey.pdf