VILLAGE NOT IN VIOLATION OF UNCLEAR INJUNCTION WHILE PERFORMING CONSTRUCTION ON ADJOINING PROPERTY

This edition of Ready for the Defense discusses the First District Appellate Court decision in Pardilla v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 2023 IL App (1^st) 211580, finding in favor of the Village, which was staging construction equipment on a strip of land owned by Plaintiffs during the construction of a sanitary lift station nearby.

The case involved the Village's need to replace a sanitary lift station due to groundwater seepage. The construction plans involved temporarily using a strip of land on the Plaintiffs’ property for staging equipment and materials. The Village claimed to have easements that permitted this use, including a utility easement and a blanket easement mentioned in the subdivision plat dedication. The Village began construction on the lift station, erecting a six-foot-high chain link fence around the construction site, including a portion of Plaintiffs’ property, without their consent or a temporary construction easement. Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, alleging inverse condemnation and seeking a preliminary injunction.

Village Easements

"An easement is an individual's right or privilege, for a limited purpose, to either pass over or use the land of another." Katsoyannis v. Findlay, 2016 IL App (1st) 150036. The Village argued that it had a utility easement running north-south along the rear of the Plaintiffs’ property, a gas easement along the front, and a "blanket easement," encumbering every property in the subdivision, including the Plaintiffs’ property. A blanket easement is formed when the instrument creating the easement does not delineate specific dimensions of the easement for ingress and egress. 1400 Museum Park Condo. Ass'n v. Kenny Constr. Co., 2021 IL App (1st) 192167.

The blanket easement was indicated on the subdivision plat as follows:

"An easement is hereby reserved and granted to the Village of Hoffman Estates within the areas shown by dashed lines and within the area defined 'Easements for Public Utilities' on this plat, to install, lay, construct, renew, operate and maintain conduits, cables and wires, storm and sanitary sewer and water mains and drainage swales, above and underground, with all necessary manholes, water valves and other equipment for the purpose of serving the subdivision and other property with telephone, electric, sewer and water service, and drainage purposes, the right to enter upon the lots at all times to install, lay, construct, renew, operate and maintain within said easement areas said conduits, cables, wires, manholes, water valves and other equipment." Pardilla, 2023 IL App (1^st) 211580.

The trial court found that the strip was not “within the areas shown by dashed lines” or within the area defined “Easements for Public Utilities”. Id. Further, the court found that the Village's use of the Plaintiffs' property as a construction staging area exceeded the blanket easement to "install, lay, construct, renew, operate and maintain" equipment within those easements. Id.

The trial court granted the Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, ordering the Village to “vacate and depart” from Plaintiffs’ property and remove the chain link fence within seven days. Id. Additionally, the order provided that the Village "may not interfere or prohibit" the Plaintiffs’ use of their property "in the area complained of in the complaint." Id.  However, the order did not prohibit the Village from "appropriate exercise of easement rights" under the subdivision plat and the blanket easement. Id.

Despite the initial removal of fencing and materials, the Plaintiffs claimed that the Village continued to perform construction work on their property, in violation of the injunction. The Village continued to place and stockpile building materials and other items on Plaintiffs’ property, conducting construction-related work including construction personnel using and placing construction vehicles and equipment on the property, and traveling over the property with vehicles.

The Plaintiffs initiated contempt proceedings, resulting in the trial court finding the Village in indirect civil contempt and imposing a fine of $1,000 per day for any activity occurring in violation of the preliminary injunction. Additionally, the court awarded the Plaintiffs attorney fees incurred in bringing the contempt petition.

Village Appeals Three Trial Court Orders: 1) Preliminary Injunction; 2) Contempt Finding; and 3) Award of Attorney Fees

An injunction is "a judicial process, by which a party is required to do a particular thing, or to refrain from doing a particular thing.”  In re A Minor, 127 Ill. 2d 247 (1989) (quoting Wangelin v. Goe, 50 Ill. 459 (1869)). The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent a threatened wrong or a continuing injury pending a trial on the merits of the case. Limestone Development Corp. v. Village of Lemont, 284 Ill. App. 3d 848 (1996). Injunctions may be prohibitory or mandatory. Continental Cablevision of Cook County, Inc. v. Miller, 238 Ill. App. 3d 774 (1992). A prohibitory injunction orders a defendant to refrain from continuing certain actions while a mandatory injunction commands the defendant to perform a positive act. Id.

The preliminary injunction in this case contained both mandatory and prohibitory orders. It required the Village to do certain things and to refrain from others. The Village was ordered to remove the fencing that it had erected and "vacate and depart" from the Plaintiffs' property within seven days. The Village was also ordered not to "interfere with or prohibit" the Plaintiffs' use of their property. However, the prohibition did not bar the Village from "appropriate exercise of easement rights." Pardilla, 2023 IL App (1^st) 211580.

The Appellate Court agreed with the Village’s contention that the court’s order to "not interfere with or prohibit" the Plaintiffs’ use of their property while retaining "appropriate exercise of easement rights" was unclear.

Per Section 11-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

"Every order granting an injunction shall set forth the reasons for its entry; shall be specific in terms; shall describe in reasonable detail, and not by reference to the complaint or other document, the act or acts sought to be restrained." 735 ILCS 5/11-101 (West 2020).

Illinois courts have consistently held that "an injunction must be definite, clear, and precise in its terms in order to conform with this statutory requirement." Patrick Media Group, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 252 Ill. App. 3d 942 (1993). "Broad, nonspecific language that merely enjoins a party to obey the law or comply with an agreement does not give the restrained party fair notice of what conduct will risk contempt." Id.

"[T]he terms of an injunction should have sufficient clarity and specificity to allow the parties to ascertain with reasonable certainty what is prohibited or required, and to conform their conduct to the requirements of the injunction, without requiring inferences about what conduct is prohibited or being subject to misunderstanding and confusion." 42 Am. Jur. 2d Injunctions § 261 (2023).

"Broad, nonspecific language that merely enjoins a party to obey the law or comply with an agreement does not give the restrained party fair notice of what conduct will risk contempt." Id.

The Appellate Court found that the order to not "interfere with or prohibit" the Plaintiffs’ use of their property while the Village may appropriately exercise its easement rights is neither definite, clear, nor precise. Pardilla, 2023 IL App (1^st) 211580. Such an order gives little more direction than a general direction to simply obey the law. Interference with or prohibition of a property owner's use of their property does not identify specific acts. Such directions are broad terms or legal conclusions.

Conclusion

Since prohibitory conduct must be set forth clearly in an order, the Appellate Court found the preliminary injunction unenforceable, clarifying that while the prohibitory order was unclear, the mandatory orders requiring the Village to remove the fence and building materials from the property were moot.

Additionally, while the Appellate Court might not have found the contempt order proper since the Village complied with the mandatory, clear order to remove the fence and materials, the Court did not need to address this issue, as it determined that the contempt finding was procedurally improper. Therefore, the Appellate Court dismissed the order granting the preliminary injunction, finding it moot, further dismissing both the contempt order and order granting attorney fees.