THEO BUETOW and MARIANNE BUETOW, Claimants, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimants sought damages for alleged tortious interference with tenant relationships during condemnation proceedings. The court dismissed the claim, finding no authority for the cause of action and no lack of good faith by IDOT.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- ROLAND W. BURRIS,Attorney General (RICHARD F. LINDEN, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondents.
- Tows- condemnation of apartment building-owners failed to state claim for intentional interference with contractual relationship. The apartment building owners’ complaint alleging that the Illinois Department of Transportation, without authorization, notified the building’s tenants of its intention to pursue condemnation proceedings and induced the tenants to vacate the premises by offering them money to relocate, failed to state a cause of action for intentional interference with Claimants’ contractual relationship with their tenants, since there was no evidence of lack of good faith on the part of the Department, and it acted pursuant to Federal regulations in sending notices to the tenants.
OPINION
RAUCCI, J.
This cause comes before us after a full evidentiary hearing before a commissioner, briefing and oral arguments by the parties before us.
Claimants owned a 33-unit apartment building in Chicago Heights, Illinois. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) sought to obtain the property for a State and Federal highway project.
On December 6, 1983, IDOT notified the tenants that negotiations with the Claimants would begin on December 9. On that date, the IDOT commenced negotiations by offering $250,250.00 for the property. Shortly thereafter, IDOT delivered a letter to tenants informing them that negotiations had commenced, and of the tenants’ right to relocation assistance and possible benefits. The letter also informed the tenants that under no circumstances would they be required to move prior to 90 days from the date of the notice and that they would receive at least 30 days’ notice.
On January 6,1984, Claimants made a counter-offer of $423,000.00. The IDOT commenced condemnation [*95] proceedings which resulted in a consent judgment of $290,000.00. The IDOT acquired title on June 19, 1984, and took possession on June 28,1984.
On December 31, 1984, Claimants filed their onecount complaint seeking “money damages in tort.” In substance, the complaint alleged that prior to instituting condemnation, IDOT “without authority or approval notified the tenants O O O of its intention to pursue condemnation O O and further induced said tenants to vacate Claimants’ premises by offering them money to relocate.”
Claimants cite no authority, and we find no authority, which would entitle them to the relief sought. It appears that this theory is based upon intentional interference by IDOT with Claimants’ contractual relationships with their tenants. The record does not support a finding of a lack of good faith on the part of IDOT. The entire process was completed, including a condemnation proceeding, within six months. IDOT acted pursuant to Federal regulations in sending notices to the tenants. Neither Federal nor State law creates a cause of action in favor of Claimants for damages caused by IDOT’s implementation of the regulations.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that this claim is dismissed and forever barred.