River Park, Inc. v. The City Of Highland Park

703 N.E.2d 883 (Ill. 1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owned land in D. In July 1988, P petitioned D to obtain approval for its plans to develop the property. P requested a change in the zoning classification of one portion of this property from R-1 to R-4. The petition also included a request for approval of a planned residential development on the property. While the petition was pending, a city council member, Geraci, formed a citizen's group named 'Save the Open Space,' the purpose of which was to encourage D to purchase the property in order to prevent P's planned development. The commission approved the zoning change and also approved the planned development, with certain modifications. The commission provided the city council with an unconditional recommendation for approval of the zoning change and the planned development. The city council did not communicate to P that it was interested in purchasing the property. The city council adopted the commission's zoning recommendation and approved the preliminary development plan. All P had to do was to submit final engineering plans and to obtain the city engineer's verification that the engineering plans complied with applicable statutes and ordinances. Failure to receive the city engineer's approval within one year of preliminary plat approval would mean the plan had been withdrawn. P submitted the final engineering plans in April, and the engineer refused to review or discuss the plans until October. With certain modifications and corrections, 95% of the engineering plans were complete and satisfied all of D's requirements. D's engineers agreed to review the remaining 5% of the plans by December and provide criteria for completion of those plans. P made his corrections and D's engineers refused to review either the corrected plans or the other 5% by the December 1 deadline. P's one year date was January 22, 1991. The city council refused Spatz's request to place the petition on its agenda. D knew that P's bank would foreclose if P did not produce approval of the final plans. On January 22, 1991, the city council withdrew its preliminary approval of the plans and informed P that, in order to have the zoning changed, it would be required to start the commission review process from the beginning. P was forced to declare bankruptcy. P made reorganization plans but had no idea D was talking directly to P's creditors while the second petition for rezoning was pending. After a proof of ownership, requirement was created by D and the commission not granting an extension of time D purchased the property for $10 million, far below the market value of the property. P sued under 1983 for violations of due process. The court dismissed the action with prejudice. P appealed, and the 7th Circuit affirmed. In 1994, P sued in state court for (1) tortious interference with a business expectancy, (2) breach of an implied contract, and (3) abuse of governmental power. D moved to dismiss on res judicata. The trial court granted the motion. P appealed. The appellate court reversed the dismissal in that the claims in the state court were different than those in the federal suit. D appealed.