twenty livingston were here today because bellville demolished the building they actually demolished two buildings without any notice to the building owners in fact building owners objected to the demolition the first floor of the buildings were completely intact you can see from the photographs computers people's photographs their kid the law in illinois is specifically stated in statute and that  constitutionally protected property rights and that law says that you have to give at least fifteen days written notice before you tear somebody building down even if it were an emergency situation you're still have to have a court order so after you send the fifteen day notice you still need a quarter and under the case law from the supreme court of illinois you not only have to show the city not only carries the burden of proof with sufficient evidence to show that the building was unsafe and dangerous but they also have to show that the building was basically beyond repair in fact the aurora case from the supreme court says you have to determine the value of the building before you can tear it down the city called hanks excavating at seven o'clock in the morning and said come on down to tear this building down they were ready to tear the building down before they ever had any evidence that the building was unsafe or structurally unsound the case law tells us that you need a structural agreed with us they never brought the structural engineer they never told me who she was what her name was anything when i finally find the structural engineer in the midst of summary judgment motions she tells me i never went in the building i never gave a professional opinion i never said anything that they're saying i said and she signed an affidavit to that effect from rome so the city tears a building down without notice without permission without a court order without even knowing if the building is unsafe the roof on the my client's building had been destroyed the roof of the top of the building and some of the walls but you can see from the pictures and i know looking in the index last night that they're not very independent they're not very well seen in the photo copy of it but you can see the steel beams once they tear the neighboring building down so the beams this is a steel and mortar building the city had cordoned off an area that had a few bricks that is falling down i don't think there were even a see that you're under sorry about that i haven't really they do make that if you go through but will you'll see they do but it anyway the point is that to make to make it safe for the public if they're really concerned about safety for the public how about the fact that they demolish buildings every year and they know that commercial buildings have a specialist in them and before you can tear a building down you have to send notice to illinois e p a they have to come and inspect it if they want to they get ten days for that and you have to adequately when you might while the property owner does not want his building to be taken down we fight in the motions for summary judgment which are extensive the only evidence on the record of a specialist is in the motions for summary judgment that was not presented at all at the trial on the counter claims the judge in its final order orders not only that that the plaintiffs pay for the demolition that he opposed that was totally unlawful but he ordered him to a created by their own law demolition the judge found that the city was immune from prosecution for what they have done here even though the statute clearly creates liability one four seven says if you if you injure a party or the fur the attorney that mr phillips had wrote some letters and in those letters he said my guy will turn over the check for the insurance proceeds he did represent that he did not consult the client on that the client testified he didn't consult me on that i never agreed to it and if he had agreed to it which mr daniels surely did agree to it he didn't have authority to do that and what's the consideration it's more like a re vokable gift he will pay you after the fact for a demolition that we opposed the fact that mr phillips never turned over the check until it was ordered by the judge shows you that he was not ratifying what his lawyer was doing in that case he amount for the building because they only covered five thousand dollars for damage but yeah chester nance had presented his money for the demolition and he was not represented  if if mr phillips had agreed then he would have turned the check over you'll see that there is a letter from mr sprague where mr sprague says it's not acceptable to us to take the eighty eight thousand dollars check and return forty three thousand dollars to your guy instead we'd like to put it into didn't he didn't do that and so that's why you might find it curious that someone has done quite a few appeals might file a notice of appeal prematurely as i did in that case honestly when i read the order of the judge said that he was denying he denied my motion to  counter claims but he denied their motion for summary judgment on it honestly i didn't think there was anything else to do since they had presented everything that they absolutely had which the trial record shows to they had nothing else all they did well was present these letters going to them trying to get at his which had presented the letters and they even asked mr phillips did you receive this letter and he said no i didn't that was addressed to my sister's address i didn't receive it but even if he had which he hadn't you have to have consideration to have a contract the consideration has to flow both ways where w hills you'll see that they set forth the standards for demolition and you see the keep those and they do talk about the extreme remedy but i'd really like to hit head on in the singhs case is very very good too and it tells us that you know the police power is subject to the constitution and the constitution is being interpreted through the statute where you have to give notice and due process and find the least least invasive way to to deal with someone's property not necessarily to tear it down but i guess the scariest issue that i need to deal with today and so i would really like to to argue it is about the jurisdiction when we found most of appeal we had finally had a final order and now we could appeal so we listed the final order and we proceeded to appeal statement and three places in the docking statement we tie the two orders together and we say we're appealing both of these things both of these things are about an unlawful demolition if you look at the supreme court case law from one nine hundred seventy nine of her town case they talk about how the purpose of the notice of appeal is to give the prevailing party notice that the unsuccessful litigant plans to go to a higher court well they certainly had notice of that and it specifically states that if they are not prejudiced then then  procedural error in the notice of appeal is not fatal what would make them prejudice they didn't have notice what they had noticed within the thirty day period of all the issues and all those issues are consistent with the briefs and that same case goes on to say  at let me just read it exactly it says when an appeal is taken from a specified judgment only or from a part of a specified judgment the court of review acquires no jurisdiction to review other judgments or part thereof not so specified or not fairly to be if the notice of appeal itself and the subsequent proceedings i'm sorry if from the north of appeal itself and the subsequent proceedings it appears that the appeal was intended and the appellant and appellee so understood well you don't judgement such a construction would be appropriate where the specified order directly relates back to the judgment or order sought to be reviewed and then they go on to say that if it is a procedural progression in the case if the prior order was a procedural progression in the case it would be most appropriate well you can't charge us for the demolition and make us debate these fastest unless you found that the city did not have  demolition and that the city was was it not and you so the judge found they were immune and they didn't have to comply with the law you can't even get to ordering us to pay for the demolition and a beta unless you first made those findings and it  have piece meal appeals we're not having a piecemeal appeal we're here on all of the issues now and it's and it talks about how the appeal from a subsequent final judgment draws in question all prior non fin al orders and rulings which produced the judgment you couldn't have got to the final judgment unless you had the previous two so that's where we're at on that and the case is pretty well on that talking about the notice and  what purposes and even cite federal law as an example and in the federal law they appealed an injunction order and the court said we'll see if they could talk about other issues other than that injunction in order to this is how and they talk about liberal construction of it and  that they apparently unless they apparently is prejudiced there by the absence of strict technical compliance with the form of the notice is not fatal and where the deficiency in the notice is one of four only and not of substance the appellate court is not  didn't get his permission they didn't go in front of the court they didn't find that the building was unsafe they didn't even develop the evidence you have a question no you just looking at me curiously ok questions are easier guy ok but then after he's after he's deprived of his building you know they tell him you can get your stuff out when he shows up with a ban and they say sorry you can't get your stuff out after he's deprived of his building then he's deprived   his day in court to talk about it before they demolish it but then he's also deprived of his day in court after they demolish it because the court decides that the city is immune it's a policy decision the the judgment of the judge in both orders is court in its ability hill's case specifically states no matter what the emergency or not you need an adjudication you have to go in front of a judge the court house the fire was on a weekday and the court house is four blocks from where this fire is so they could have applied for an injunction i know i have personally apply for t r rose give the other side full notice get in there and get a t r o so they they could if they really thought the building was dangerous they army wealthy and malpractise insurance i guess that might be an issue the thing is that he didn't have a thorny to speak for his client but also the case law talks about if your hour of court you have to get your clients express arthur ization to do what you're doing if you look at his letters he talks about photo ops and things like that but even if he had obligated let's say that he said hey my guy will pay this where's the consideration both ways and there's no consideration for that promise to pay so it's essentially a revokable gift which you could then say the client revoked because he didn't want to pay it and he never gave his attorney authority to express that we would need in africa acceptance and consideration and i'm not sure of the date on the letters but if you look at mr sprague's letter where he says your proposal to give him a rebate is not acceptable to me if that matters after the fact then you may see that you also don't have a meeting of the minds with respect to how to even pay for the demolition of your first aspirate think eighty thousand which was for the whole demolition of both buildings not just the one if you don't have consideration then then how would you agree to pay for it and and the demolition is unlawful which it is then why should you be ordered to pay for it if you had revoked your promise to pay before you were done when there was no consideration the appeal there was a complaint that was filed by ronnie philips against the city about in that complaint he's monetary damages against the city for the destruction of his property for rebuilding his property and loss he had a renter that was in the property he wanted the city to pay for that the city in turn by old a counter claim against mr phillips in the counter cla thousand and twelve the court granted the motion for summary judgment as to all of the claims that were brought by mr phillips so as a result of that decision the city about the would not have to pay any money to m that issue was decided the court found that there was a question of fact as to the counter claim brought by the city about well against mr butler fast forward to april of two thousand and thirteen there's a trial there's a bench at the bench trial things sole issue that was heard by the court was bell bill's counterclaims does mr phillips have to endorse the check and who does mr phillips have to clean up his property that was the only issue or issues a decision in april of two thousand and thirteen finding in favor of the city of bell and both of them within thirty days mr phillips files his notice of appeal in his notice of appeal the only issue that he appeals was the april two thousand and thirteen court order and the relief that he requested was that this who are rude verse the court should have granted summary judgment in favor of the city about that issue has already been decided so now the focus of the court on the appeal is when you have a situation where a private property owner property is damaged beyond repair who should pay the cost to demolish the property should it be that tax payers and residents of the city of bell bill or should it be the private property owner whose property was damage in this case mr phillips had insurance to cover the cost of the demolition and that's important and why is that important it's important because the only way the legislature has said that it the private property owner's responsibility to pay those costs if you take a look at section three nine seven point one section d one of the only insurance that section provides th when you have a situation where property is demolished the insurance company is required to name the municipality on that chapter so state farm had to name the city of bell bell as there are cases that we state in our brief that talked about the fact that like if you have a physician's lien if a position places a lien on a personal injury case and the insurance company issues a check and they don't actually turn the money that proceeds over to the physician the physician has a claim because he's rightfully entitled to that money the same situation occurs here the city about what is rightfully entitled to that insurance proceeds from state farm state parent knows that that's why a state farm name the city about the charity and it was mr phillips who refused to turn over that money so the trial court determined that that was a breach of contract whether this court determine if you take a look at the letter that was it was just number twenty two thousand the letters was written from mr daniel to attorney bob's right and in there he writes bob i was able to confer with randy phillips on friday december seventeenth two thousand and ten we are in agreement for him to endorse that eighty eight thousand five hundred seventy eight dollars state farm check over to either the city  about this letter he said that even though it was not addressed it was not mailed to his address that his sister read the letter to him so he was aware and i asked him what in two thousand and eleven in january two thousand and eleven was attorney daniel still your attorney yes he was so the argument was that he ratified this agreement knowing that mr daniel had sent this letter saying that there was an agreement he never disclaimed that gave him a down the amount mr philips in turn called his own insurance company and told them this is how much the check should be made out to the city about bell and so based on those actions and the trial court was in the the next issue that was brought up on appeal are one of claim was the issue of the nuisance who has to clean up this property and both sides agree that there is no dispute whatsoever that there was on the property that there was a new set that is agreed to by the parties mr phillips testified at trial that he does not know the source of the s past so he doesn't know whether it came from his building he doesn't know whether it came from the only evidence that was brought or by mr phillips at trial to suggest that he should not have to pay the costs of the cleanup was his argument that the city of bell the had unclean hands because the city of  improperly demolished his property the problem with that argument is that the trial court had already decided on summary judgment that the city about bill was that entitled to demolish the property and that issue was raised to the economy so it was not considered because it was already decided the building inspector for the city of bell bill came in and testified at trial brought in pictures of the current state of the property and said i believe in my opinion that this property violates the bell the local ordinance nuisance and it should be cleaned out that was what the court found so the court ordered that mr phillips had to clean up the property and it hasn't been since this time been cleaned up the remaining issues that were brought up in the appellate brief are all issues related to whether or not the city of bellville was entitled to summary judgment back in december two thousand and twelve on those issues of whether or not the city acted in accordance with statute and whether or not the city about those entitle to tour immunity act again it's the city about his position that there is no jurisdiction whatsoever for any of those issues that they should not be considered by the court and if the court would like me to address those issues i certainly can and i'm willing to do so right now but otherwise i would suggest that if there are no other questions then we ask that the judgment in favor of the city  the first thing i would know is when julie says that as a result of the summary judgment decision the city didn't have to pay any damages for tearing this building down that's true but also the plaintiff was seeking injunctive relief in fact we had a motion for preliminary injunction she broke down and we never got our preliminary injunction but we were also seeking injunctive relief for the nuisance of the expenses that they created and that was also tonight when we get to the final order of the judge orders us  testified he did indeed but he testified that there were we and that we'd violated the ordinance he did not testify to us past it so everybody was treating all the issues as though they were the same could in the judge's final words if he's dealing with this best in the final order of the only place we ever dealt with this was in the summary judgment motions how do we know there's this because chester nance signed an affidavit saying these best just came from the tile in his building and in the summary judgment we had a report from illinois e p a where illinois e p a speaking of people not honoring their agreements told bellville that it was their responsibility to hire a contractor and that they needed to and mr tim gregor with said that he would and that's and that  o so that's in the evidence so it wasn't just they would have to pay damages it was that we were also deny our injunctive relief which later in the final order even though that's not an issue at trial it is in the final order that we are ordered to clean up these  some evidence they did present sheet langston and he only testified on one issue that it was right to demolish the building they did have the burden of proving that they had properly demolished the building if there so your argument you're saying it was not an issue safe condition and i actually asked the judge orally will you please reconsider your decision from the summary judgment because you can see that he is telling you fire safe condition is that do your sprinklers work do you have a fire wall ar preventing a fire from occurring that's a fire safe condition years so even as we're doing that trial we're looking at the issues of how did you even get to where you demolished our building maybe even asking us to pay for that you're asking us to clean up th with us and we eventually cleaned up this fastest with chester but he would have been unnecessary party for the city to pursue us on these masters and he was not there and we actually argued that in our motions as well i also found motion to dismiss the counter claim and in the judge decides the final order that is in play and since you couldn't get to the next issues unless you got to the issue that it was that it was a lawful demolition and that the city was immune from prosecution so that we from day one from moment one i guess that they were going to tear this building down and the gullible inspector tells us actually what fire safe condition is and it's not you can tear our building down and now say it's fire safe and that's ok