Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves the West Suburban Bank, acting as Trustee, challenging the City of West Chicago's involuntary annexation of six parcels of land under Illinois Municipal Code section 7-1-13. The bank contended that the annexation violated conditions regarding the 60-acre limit and the requirement for the land to be 'wholly bounded.' The City had enacted an ordinance annexing eight parcels, asserting the total area was less than 60 acres, excluding a state highway. The trial court denied the City's motion to dismiss and considered cross-motions for summary judgment. The court ruled in favor of the City, excluding the highway from the acreage calculation and determining the land was properly bounded. The appellate court reviewed the matter de novo, affirming the trial court's decision. It held that the inclusion of Route 64 in the annexation was appropriate under Section 7-1-1 and should not be counted against the 60-acre limit of Section 7-1-13. The annexation was deemed valid as the parcels were surrounded by municipal borders and a forest preserve. The court's interpretation harmonized the relevant statutory provisions, aligning with legislative intent and prior case law. The plaintiff's appeal was dismissed, and the annexation upheld.
Legal Issues Addressed
Annexation under Illinois Municipal Code Section 7-1-13subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the annexed property did not exceed the 60-acre limit and was 'completely surrounded' as required by statute, thus affirming the annexation.
Reasoning: The court ruled that Route 64 should not be included in the calculation, reducing the annexed property to approximately 57 acres, and found it was 'completely surrounded' as per the statute.
Boundaries for Annexation Purposessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the annexed territory was properly considered 'wholly bounded' by municipalities and a forest preserve, meeting statutory requirements.
Reasoning: The annexation was valid under section 7-1-13(e), which permits annexation of territory wholly bounded by municipalities and a forest preserve district.
Exclusion of Highways in Annexation Acreage Calculationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that Route 64, being annexed by operation of law under Section 7-1-1, should not be included in the 60-acre calculation under Section 7-1-13.
Reasoning: In this case, Route 64 was annexed by operation of law under Section 7-1-1, allowing the trial court to exclude it from the 60-acre limit of Section 7-1-13.
Summary Judgment and Absence of Factual Disputessubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court treated the defendant's response as a cross-motion for summary judgment due to the parties' agreement on the absence of factual disputes, which was affirmed.
Reasoning: Lastly, the court found no error in treating the defendant’s response as a cross-motion for summary judgment, as both parties agreed there were no factual disputes and the matter was a legal question.