No. 2-09- 1345 File d: 9-22-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ JOH N BJ ORK a nd S TE PH ANI E B JOR K, ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) o f La ke Co un t y. Plai ntif fs-Appel lan ts, )

) v. ) No. 03-- MR--1491 ) JOHN DRAPER and LIZ DRAPER, ) ) Defe ndan ts-Appelle es ) ) Ho no r ab le (La ke Fo re st Ope n Land s Asso ciat ion, ) Ra ymo nd J. Mc Ko sk i, Def endan t). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CESC HO STO K

de l i v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: The insta nt co nt ro ver sy aro se a fte r t he de fendant s, J ohn D ra per and Liz Dr ap er , mad e s o me al ter at ions to their h

ome an d propert y. The se al

terat ions consi sted of the addi

tion of a c ircle dr ive wa y, an

addi ti on to the res i de nc e that tota l ed

i n e xc es s of 1,9 00 s qua

re f ee t, an d the addi ti on of several pla nts and trees. The def

endan ts' l and was s

ubj ect to a con se rv ati oneasem ent that was
ma naged by the LakeFores t Ope

n Lan dsA ss oci ati on (the Association). (The As sociation has b een dis mi ssed as a p ar ty to the la wsui t.) T he A ssocia

tion al lowed t he de fendant s t o a mend t he ea sement on three occas i ons to m

ake th e al terati ons to the

hom e an d property
. The

pl ai ntif f s, Joh n B j orkand St ep ha nie Bj ork , the def

en da n ts' n ei gh b ors , f i l ed a c om pl ai n t i n th e c ir cu it co ur t o f La ke Co un t y, alleging that t he def

endan ts' al terat ions had v iolated t hecon servation easemen t o n the defendan

ts' pr o pe rt y. T he p laint iffs furt her alleged t hat t he co nser vat ion ea sement co uld no t be amend ed. TheNo. 2-- 09--1345

-2-

trial court ruled that, as a m

atter of l aw, th e con serv

ati on ea sem

en t coul d be am ended. Fo llowing
a bench trial , the tri

al courtdetermi

ned that the fi

rst t wo amendment s t o t he ea sement (r ega rd ing t he addi ti on o f t he cir cle dri

v ew ay ) w er e p rop er

b ut th at th e th i rd am en dm en t (re ga rdi n g th e addi ti on to t he home and of the vari

ous plants and trees) was not. The plai ntif fs appealed, arguin

g that the trial courterred

i n f i nd i ng tha t the con serv ati

on easem ent could b e am

ended. Alt er nat ively, t he p laint iffs argued t ha t t he firs t an d s ec o nd ame nd me nts were not valid. T his co ur t det er mined t hat t he
con serv ati

on ea se men t co uld be amend ed; ho weve r, neithe r t he fi rst nor t he second a

me ndm ent was val id. Bj ork v. D raper ( Bj orkI ), 381 Ill . App. 3d 528, 542 (2008). We therefore reversed the trial
co ur t 's deci si on and re manded f or addi tion al procee di ngs . Bj ork I , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 545. S pe cif ica lly, we dir ec t ed t he t r ial c o ur t t o eq uit ab ly co nsid er all of the al terat ions that had been

ma de to th e p rop er

ty an d, i n i ts d i scre ti on , de

ter m i n e " wh i ch al te ra t ions, if any, must be r emove d and which, if any, may be retained." Bj ork I , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 543. Between Novem ber 16 and Novem

ber 25, 200 9, t he t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a hear ingbase d on t his court 's m

andate. Foll

owing the heari ng, the trial

cour t o rdered the defen dants to remove a porti on of the bri ck turnaround driveway

and also remove certai

n trees. The trial

co ur t did not o rder that the def

endan ts rem ove a ny part of the a ddi tion to thei r hom e. The p la

in tif fs thereafter f

il ed a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. We affir m. I. Bac kgr ou nd The hi sto ry of thi s case was set for t h in Bj ork I . We theref ore discuss

only those facts that
arerel evan t to the di sp osi ti on of t he cu rr en t ap pe al. The def endan ts' propert y i

s located in the La

ke Forest His

to ric Di strict, which i s lis

ted on the National

Regi ster o f His t o r ic Plac esi n r ec ogn i ti on of it s ex ce pt io na lly

well-preserv

ed bui ldi ngs an d si tes of archi

tectur al , cultural , and historic signifi cance.No. 2-- 09--1345

-3-

Th e d ef en da nts ' prope rty con sists of two lot s. On l

ot 1 is a house known

as the "K erri gan House ," whi ch is report edl y the oldest house i

n the Lake F orest Hi st o r ic D is t r ict
. Lo t 2 is ap pr o ximat ely 25,000 sq ua r e fe et an d is pa r t o f t he landscaped grounds adj acent to t he h is to ric h ouse. On Decem ber 30, 199 8, lot 2 bec ame su bject t o t he co nser vat io n e as eme nt , w hich is managed by the Asso ciat ion. The easem ent provided that the preservation of the open a nd l andscape d grounds adjac ent to the Kerrigan House contrib utes greatly

to the appearance

of t he Ker riga n Ho use and t he pu blic e njoyment of t he Lak e Fo re st Hist or ic Dist rict . T he ea sement furt her indicat ed t hat t he prop erty i s l oca ted on an d v i si bl e f rom Sheri da n R oad , a pub l i c roa

d that f orms p art of

the system of s cen i c roadw ays ci

rcl i ng Lake Mi chi gan , know

n a s the "La ke M i chi gan

Ci rcle Tour." T he ea se men t fur t he rse t fo r t h t he fo llo win g t er ms, wh ich ar e p er t ine nt t o t his a pp ea l: "1. Purpo se . It is the purpose o f thi s Easement to assu re that the Pr op er t y will be retained forever predomi nan tly in its sce nic and open spa

ce condi tion, as lawn an

d la ndscaped gro unds. 2. Ri ghts of Grantee . To acco mpl is h the purpo s e o f this E ase ment t he fo llowing ri gh ts a recon v ey ed to th e G ra n tee b y th i s E as em

en t: (a) To t ake suc h act ions a s ar e r eas ona bly necessa ry and co nsist ent wit h t he t er ms of thi s Easemen

t to pre serv e a

nd prote ct the c ons erv

ati on valu es o f t he P r o pe r t y; *** (c) To view t he pr op er t y in i t s sce nic and o pen c ond itio n at gr ou nd le vel f rom pu blic ly- ac ce ss ible lan d a dj ac en t t o t he P r o pe r t y; * * *No. 2-- 09--1345

-4- 3. Prohib ited Uses
. Any a ct ivit y o n o rus e o f t he Pr o pe r t y inco nsis t en t wit h t he purpo se of t his Eas ement is pro hibited . Wit hou t lim iting t he gene ra lity of t he for ego ing, t he followi ng acti vi ties on an d uses of the Property are ex pressl y prohi bi ted: (a) The place m ent or construct ion of any bui ldi ngs wh atsoever, or ot her structur es or im

provemen ts of any kin d *** except

that t he exist ing dr iveways se rving
sa id Lo t 1 and th e ex i sti

n g en croach

men t of th e K er ri ga n Hou se on to th e P rop er

ty
ma y c ontinue; * * * 4. Dev el opm en t Ri gh ts . To th

e exten t th at Gran

tors own or a reen ti tl ed to deve lop ment right s which may exist now or at so me time her eaft er by reason of the f

act that under any applic abl e zoni ng or sim il ar ordinan

ce the P rop erty may

be devel oped t o a use m ore in tensi ve *** than

the Propert y i

s devoted as of the date hereof , such dev

el opm en t ri gh ts shal l n ot be exercis abl

e on, above, or below the Pro perty, nor shal l they be transf erred to any adj acent parcel

and exercis ed

i n a man ne r th at w oul

d i nte rf ere wi th th e p res erv ati on and con serv ati

on purpos es of

thi s Eas em

en t. Notwithstandi

ng the f orego in g, *** the owner of said Lot 1 may

in cl ude the area of the Property along with the a rea of sai d Lot 1, but o nly to t he e xt ent t hat inclu sio n o f t he a re a o f t he Property will permi t t he construction of a

n addi tional one t hou sand five

hu nd red (1, 500 ) s qua

re f ee t of bu i l di ng f l oorare a on

sa i d L ot 1. In t he fall of 20 00, t he de f

en da nts en cl ose d the s cre en

ed -i n p orch on the house and c onverted it into livi

ng space. Th ispo rch was l ocated o n the f

irst f loor, in a port ion of

the house that encroached

onto lot 2. In the fal

l of 2002, the defe

ndan ts added an addi

tion to t he resi

dence thatNo. 2-- 09--1345

-5-

to taled i n e xc es s of 1,9 00 s qua

re f ee t. The d ef

en da nts con su lt ed wit h

th e A ss oci

ati on pri or to buildingt he ad dit ion. The As sociation in dic ated that it would approve an addi tion larger than 1,500 squa re feet i n exchan ge f or th e def en da n ts' repl ac i n g th e a l um i n um si di n g on th e K er ri ga n Hou se wi th wooden si din

g. The Ass ociati on's cons

ultant, Stephen Ch

risty, bel ie ved that re placing t he siding wi

th wooden si din

g would restore the house to its origi nal condi tion. Af ter the addi

tion wascompl

eted, Ch ri sty viewed the property and determi ned that the addi ti on w asnot v i si bl e f rom Sheridan Road. Hebe l i eved

tha t the addi ti on d i d n ot i m pai r an y con serv ati

on p urp ose set f orth i n th e c ons erv ati on ea se m en t. Ad dit io na lly, h e o bse r ve d t ha t t he ad dit io n w o uld not b e v i si bl e to a pe rs on walki ng past lot 2 on Sheri dan Road. In the fal l of 2003, the d efe ndan

ts consulted wi

th Chri sty ab out addi

ng a b rick dri veway t ur na r o un d t o lo t 1. T his d r ive wa y wo uld en cr o ac h o n lo t 2. Also in 20 03 , the def

en da n ts al tered t he la ndscapi ng on l ot 2. The def

endan ts had planted some addi tional trees i n 2001 an

d 2002, including f

our e ve rgreens i n th e s outhea st c orner of

lot 2. In October 2003, the defen dants rem oved
a row of h oney suckl e tha

t was l ocated on the e astern

edge of l ots 1 an d 2. Th ese pl an ts were approx i mate l y 9 to 10 f ee t tal l . In pl ac e of the hon ey suckl e, th e d ef en da nts pl an ted a row of arb or vi tae, an ev ergreen sh

rub. These pl

ants wer e app ro xi

mate l y f i ve f ee t tal l . A f ter th e A ss oci ati on be ca me aware o f these landscapin g changes, its representat iv es s chedul ed a meet ing wit h t he defendan ts. Fo llo win g t his meeti

n g, t h e def en da n ts mad e c erta

i n a gre em en ts w i th th e A ss oci ati on concerni ng the l andscapi ng. On Novem b er 5, 2003, t he def

endan ts and the As sociation entered in to the fi rst of three
se pa ra te agr eement s t o a mend

t he conservation easem

ent to appr ove the chan

ges that had bee

n m ade t o t he pr o pe r t y.No. 2-- 09--1345

-6-

On No vember 2 1, 200 3, t he plaint iff s filed a co mplaint ag ainst t he de f en da nts f or brea ch of t he co nse r va t io n e as eme nt an d fo rde cla r at o ry jud gme nt . T he co mpla int all ege d t hat , be cau se t he pla int iffs li

ved wi thin 500 feet of l

ot 2, they h ad sta n di n g to en f orce the prov i si ons of the con serv ati

on ea se m en t. See 765 ILCS 1 20/4 (West 200 2) . C ou nt I alle ge d t ha t t he co nse r va t io n e as eme nt co uld not be ex ti ng ui sh ed or am en de d w i thou t a c ourt order. T he pl

ai ntif fs al le ged that they h

ad been dam aged by the breach

of the conservation easem ent in that lot 2 w as not bei

ng "retai ned f orever pr ed o minan t ly

in its sce nic and open spa

ce co ndit ion, as lawn an

d la ndscaped grounds , as it ex is ted at t he t ime the c ons er vat ion e ase ment was granted." The com pla in t t heref ore requested $50,000, punit iveda

mag es , attor

ne y f ee s, a nd cos ts. C ount II de manded spe cific per for mance o f the
con serv ati

on eas ement and s ou ght an o rd er re quir ing the de f en da nts to red uc e the s izeof

the addi ti on to the Kerrigan House to 1, 50 0 s qu ar e f eet or l es s, to remov e th

e b rick dri v ew ay tur n aroun d, a n d to pay the plain

tiff s' atto rney f

ees and costs. On Oc t o be r17 , 20 06 , fo llo win g a be nc h t r ial o n t he pla int iffs' co mpla i n t, the tri al court entered j udgm en t. The t rial co ur t held t hat t he co nser vat ion ea sement co uld be a mended and t hat t he fi rst two a men dm en ts d i d n ot vi ol atethe pur pos e of t he co nser vat ion ea sement . As t o t he alt er at ions t he defend ant s had made t o t he pr op er t y, t he t rial co ur t fou nd t hat t he i m pr ov em en ts to the screenedin po rc h did no t violat e o r mat er ially impair t he pu rp os e o f the cons ervati on ea sem en t. The tri al court fou nd th at th e addi ti on to the Kerrigan House was cons truct ed after

an ag re ement was made w ith t he Asso ciat ion, whi

ch agreem

ent was later reduced to writi ng, and that

the cos t of red uc i ng the si zeof t he addi tion would b e very

expensi ve an d dis propo rtionate to any

ben efi t t hat would be accordedt he plai ntif fs. Thi s was particul

arly true in v ie wof t he pu rp os e o f the conservation easem ent and the f

act that t he addi

tion was n

ot vi si ble from Sheridan Road.No. 2-- 09--1345

-7-

The trial court addi

ti on al l y f oun d th at th e b rick dri v ew ay tur n aroun d w as n ot v i si b l e to ped est rians and d id no t mate rially i nt er fere wit h t he pu rp os e o f the co nser vat ion ea sement . As t o t he la ndscapi ng, the trial

court found that the def

endan ts' pl antin gs di d not conform to the plan set f orth in the fi rst and seco nd am

endm ents and that t he di ff

erences substantially

in terfered with the pur pose of the con serv ati

on eas ement . S pec ifi

cally, t he pl

an ts th at m ateri al l y i nte rf ere d w i th th e p urp ose of t he con serv ati

on easemen t wer e additional

spruce t rees in the southeast corner of l ot 2, the vi burnum in exce ss o f tho se a llowed by the land sca pe p lan, t wo wit chhaz el plant s, t wo blackha ws, a haw t hor n, and an el m . Th e tr i al cou rt the re fo re o rd er ed t hat t his ve ge t at io n be re mo ved . T he p laint iffs t he r ea ft er filed a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. On appe al , thi s c ourt rej ec ted the pl ai nti f f s' arg um en t tha t the con serv ati

on eas ement co uld not be am ended. Bj ork I , 38 1 I ll. App. 3d at 539. However, we de ter m i n ed th at th e a men dm en ts at issue were in val id b ecause they

confl icted wit h t he exp re ss p ro visions of the ea sem en t. Bj ork I , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 541-42. We therefore reversed the tria l c ourt 's j udgme

nt and rem

anded for t he trial cou rt to "e qui

tab l y exerc i se i ts d i screti on as t o w hich alte ra t ions, if any, must be r emove d and which, if any, may be retained." Bj ork I , 381 I ll . App. 3d at 543. I n reman din g with these directions, we expl ai ned: "We bel

ie ve that i n thi s case i

t is app ropriat e f

or th e tr i al cou rt to ex ercise

i ts di screti on and balance t he eq uit ies t o d et er mine to what re lief the pla in tif fs are entitled due to the Draper s' vi

olations o f the co ns erv

ati on e as em en t. The D rap ers ' v

i ol ati ons were n ot in tentional or culpabl

y n eglige nt such that they

wo uld p re clude t he t rial co ur t fro m balancing the equi ties of the case. Pr ior t o mak ingmost of th e a l terati on s, th e D ra

persdi d en ter i n to oral agr eement s wit h t he Asso ciat ion as well as co nsult wit h an at t or ney. U nder t he s eNo. 2-- 09--1345

-8-

circumstances, preventi

ng the trial

co ur t fro m cons ider ing

t he eq uit ies o f this ca se w ou ld be contrar y to the trial

cou rt' s obl i ga ti on to achi eve a j ust result. See Me llo n v. Co ffelt , 31 3 I ll. App. 3d 619, 626 (200 0)." Bj ork I , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 542. Between Nove m ber 16 an d Nov em ber 25, 20 09, the

tria l courtco nduc t ed a hear ing follow ing
our reman d. Of par t icular re levance t o t his app eal, Geo rg e Co vingt on, t he at t or ney who dr aft ed t he
con serv ati

on easemen t and who wo rked with the Association, test if ied that the addition to the house did not ha v e a n ad v er se i m pact on th e c on se

rvati on v al ue s, b ec au se

th e e as em

en t wa s i n ten de d to prot ect the vi ewof the house f rom Sheri dan Road and the a

ddition did n

ot im pact that view. Dave Wardeb erg, t he general

contr acto r for t he construct ion of the addition, testifi ed that the addition cost
over $990,887. T he co st t o r es t o r e t he ho us e t o it s p r ee xist ing siz e w o uld be $769,9 15. Wardeb erg testifi ed th at i t wa s n ot pos si b l e to a rb i tra ri l y re du ce th e s ize of th e addi ti on b y som e a moun t, because demo lishi ng a porti on an

d m odi f y i ng th e re main der coul

d cost m ore than rem ovi ng th e en tire add itio n. Mi chael Sul l i va n, a re al est at e ap pr aiser , t est ifi ed t hat t he f

ai r m ar ke t v al ue of th e h om e i n i ts p re sent condi

tion was $3.05 m

il li on. The val

ue of the hom

e wi thout the addi

tion would b e $1.81 million ($ 1. 24 milli

on les s t han wit h t he ad dit ion) . S t ephe n Christ y, t he fo rmer dire ct or of t he Asso ciat ion, testifi

ed that t he ad dit io n a s c o nst ruc t ed did not v i ol ateor i nte rf ere wi th th e p urp ose of t he co ns er va t io n e as eme nt , be ca us e t he ad di t io n w as no t vis ible fr o m t he pu blic r ig ht
- o f- wa y. At t he clo se o f the hear ing, t he t rial co ur t fou nd t hat t her e had been t hre e violat ions o f the
ea se m en t: (1) an addi tion to t he resi

dence that tot al ed

in excess of 1,900 square f

eet; (2) the bri ck dr iv eway t ha t en cr o ac he d o n lo t 2; an d ( 3) t he ad dit io n o f ne w t r ee s. I n d et er mi ning wh ic h alterations, if an y, s ho uld be rem oved, the trial

court i ndi cated th at i t had cons i dered

man y f actorsNo. 2-- 09--1345

-9-

in making it s de t er minatio n, includ ing: ( 1) t he har dship t o t he de fendant s; (2 ) t he bene fit t o t he pl aint iff s and t he pu blic in genera l; (3) t he cha ra ct er of t he plaint iff s' co nduc t ; (4 ) t he effect of t he conduct on the easem

ent pro vi sions and t he pu rp os e o f the eas ement ; and ( 5) t he ac t ions o f the As soci ati on as eas em en t holder. The tr i al cou rt f oun d th at th e p l ai n ti f f s' moti v e i n b ri n gi n g sui t to enfo rc e t he easem

ent was of m i ni mal i m porta nc e b ec au se

the ef f ec t of an en croa ch men t upon the easement's purpose was t he
sam e, regardless

of plai ntif fs ' m ot iv e. Af ter balan ci ng the equi

ties, the trial

court ordered t hat the brick t ur nar ou nd

po rt ion o f the driv eway that encroached upon lot 2 be rem oved. The t r ial c ourt exp l ai ne d that re

mova l wa s n ot dif f i cul t, nor proh

i bi tiv el y ex pen si ve . Car s pa rk ed o n t he turnaround could be s een f rom Sheri dan Road. The t rial co ur t fou nd pa rt icular ly i mpo rt ant t hat t he pu rp os e o f the ea semen t wa s to re

tai n l ot 2 i n i ts s ceni c a nd ope n- sp ac e c ond

i ti on "as l awn an d la ndscaped grounds ." Thi s purpose was cle ar ly and directly

frustrat ed by

bricks replacin

g grass. The trial court addi

tional ly ordered t hat the new

trees that had been

added shoul

d be rem oved,
as t he y re st r ict t he vie ws o f t he pr o pe r t y and will r es t r ict t he vie ws in greater measure as the

trees grow. Th e t ria l co ur t fo und t hat t he r emo val o f t he t re es w ou ld no t cr eat e a ha rd ship for t he defendan ts. The tri al cou rt th en sta ted tha t i t wa s n ot or der ing t he removal

of the addi

tion, the encl

osed po rc h, t he ga ra ge, or any

part the reof
. The trial court expl

ai ned that the expen

se to rest ore t he h

ouse, po rc h, or garage woul d b e gr eat ly dispro po rt ionat e t o t he minim al enhanc ement of t he ea sement 's purpose. The trial court further found that the enclosure of the po rch was p er missible und er t he pr ovisio ns of the origi

nal easem en t. The tr ia lco ur t furt her not ed t hat t he de fendant s did r ece iveNo. 2-- 09--1345

-10-

pe rm i ss i on fro m the e ase ment hold er -- t he As soci ati on--to erect an a

ddi tion greater than

1,500 s quare feet an d th at th e A ss oci ati on re as on ab l

y b el i ev ed th at i t had the auth ori

ty to am en d th e e as em en t. The t r ial c o ur t ad dit io na lly comm ented that it considered a

larg e fine-- suc h as be t wee n $20 0, 000 and $4 00 ,00 0- -to deter the vi ola tion of the ea sem

en t. How ev

er , not f i n di n g a n y au th ori ty to im pose a fi ne b ased on the ci

rcumstances of the ca se, the trial court declin

ed to impose suc

h a f in e. Fo llo win g t he t r ial c o ur t 's r ulin g, t he pla int iffs file d a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. II. D i scus si

on The pl ai nti f f s' f i rs t arg um en t on a ppe al i s th at the tri al cou rt s h ould n ot h ave e ngag ed in a bal ance of the equ

i tie s. Spe ci f

i cal l y , the p l ai

ntif f s con tend that, b ecause the R ea

l Pro perty Conserv ati

on Ri ghts Act (765 ILCS 120/0.01 et seq. (West 2008)) expressl y a uthorizes the issuan

ce of an injunct ion t o p re vent t he violat ion o f a co nser vat ion ea sement , a t rial co ur t do es no t have t he di screti on t o ba lance t he equ ities. Altho ugh t his co ur t ru led t o t he co nt ra ry in Bj ork I , t he pla int iffs insist that t hi s court's opini

on as to t hat is sue was wrongl y de ci ded and sh

ould not be f

oll owed. The de f en da n ts mai nta i n th at ou r re sol ution of tha t i ss uewa s c orre ct a

nd tha t the pl ai nti f f s' f i rs t con ten ti on is barred by the la w-of-the-case doctrine. Ge ne r ally, the la

w-of-the-case doctr in

e bars rel iti gation of an

is sue previ

ously deci ded in the
sa me cas e. Lo ng v. Elbo rno , 397 Ill . App. 3d 982, 98 9 (201 0). Thi s doctrine appl ie s to bot h i ssues of l aw an d i ssues of

f act. Al win v. Vill age of Wheeling , 3 71 I ll. App. 3d 8 98, 910 (2 007 ). Que st ions of law that are decided on a prev ious appeal

are bi nd i ng on th e tri al cou rt on rem an d a s w el l ason t he appe l l ate court i

n s ubs eque nt ap peal s. Lo ng , 397 Il

l . A pp . 3d at 989. The law-of-the-case do ct rine prot ects set t led exp ect at ions o f the par t ies, e nsur es u niformit y of de cisions , maint ains consi stency

durin g the course of a si

ngle case, ef

fectuates proper admi

ni stration of j ustice, an

d bri ngsNo. 2-- 09--1345

-11-

l i ti ga ti on to an end. Petre v. Kuci ch , 35 6 Il l . A pp. 3d 5 7, 6 3 (2 005 ). Th

e tw o recogniz ed exce pt ions to t he la w-of-the- case doctri

ne are: ( 1) wh

en a hi ghe r rev i ewi ng c ourt makes a co nt ra ry ru ling on t he
sa me is sue sub sequent to t he l ower cour t's deci si on, and (2) when a revi ewi ng cour t finds t h at i

ts prior deci si on was pal

pabl y e rroneous . Lo ng , 397 Ill . App. 3d at 989. De sp i te th e p l ai n ti f f s' i n v i tati on to fi nd that Bj ork I was wrongl y de ci ded, we decl

in e to do
so. We co nt inue t o be lieve tha t , ba sed on t he circu msta nces of t his case , it was app ro pr iate for t he trial cou rt to ex ercise

i ts e qui tab l e d i scre ti on i n ord er to en sure that a just resul

t be achi eved. See Me l l on , 313 Ill . App. 3d

at 62 6. Ac co r din gly, o ur o r igin al d ec isio n w as no t pa lpa bly er ro neo us, and the pla in tif fs ' f irst contention i

s wi thout me rit. See Lo ng , 397 Ill . App. 3d at 989. The pla int if

fs' seco nd co nt ent ion o n app eal is t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in n ot f i n di n g th at, because t he de fendant s' encr oach men t of the cons ervati on ea sem

en t was c ul pab l y ne gli gen t, they were not en titl ed to equi tabl e rel i ef
. The plaint iff

s ac kno wledg e t hat t his co ur t fou nd in Bj ork I that t he de f en da n ts were not cul pab l y ne gli gen t. Ho weve r, t he plaint iff

s mainta in that t hat finding wa s n ot part of thi s court's man

date and theref

ore was not bin

din g upon the trial

c ou rt on r emand. The pla int iffs in

si st that t he ev

ide nce adduced a

t t he h earin g followi ng rem and est ablishes t hat t he de f en da n ts wer e cul

pa b l y n eg l i gen t. Wh en a j udgme nt of a trial

cour t i s rev

er se d a n d th e c au se i s rem an de d b y th i s c our t wi th sp ec ific directions as to t he action to be taken, it is the du t y of the tr ial cour t t o follow t hose directions. Ha

rri s Tr us t & S av

i ng s B an k v . Otis El

evator C o. , 2 97 Il l . Ap

p. 3d 38 3, 387 ( 1998)
. Ge ne r ally, t he co rr ect ness o f a t rial co ur t 's ac t io n o n r ema nd is to be determi ned f rom our man

date, as opp osed to our opi

ni on. PSL Re al

ty Co. v. Gra

ni te In ve stm en t Co. , 86 Il

l . 2d 291 , 308 (1 981).No. 2-- 09--1345

-12-

T his prop osi

ti on, however, i s b as ed

upon the as su m ption th at the di recti on contain ed i n ourman da te i s pre ci se a

nd u na m bi guous. Ha rr is , 297 Ill . App. 3d at 387. Here, this c ourt 's m

andate provide d: "BE IT RE MEM BE RE D, t hat , t o w it: On t he 25 t h day o f April, 2 008 , a Dec ision o f the aforem entione d Court was

en tered of record an d in ac co r da nc e w it h t he vie ws ex pr es se d in t he attached Decis ion the judgme nt of the trial

courtis Affi

rmed in par t , R ever sed in par t and Rem anded." Based o n t his c o ur t 's ma nd at e, t he t r ial c o ur t wa s r eq uir ed t o r ev iew t his c o ur t 's d ec isio n a nd ac t "in accordance with the v

ie ws express ed" t her ein. I n Bj ork I , w e exp re ssed t he view that "[t] he Drapers' vi ola tions [of the c onse

rva tion eas em en t] werenot intentional

or culpabl

y n eglige nt such that they would prec l

ude the tri al

courtf rom b alanci

ng th e equ i tie s of the c ase ." Bj ork I , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 542. Based on this f

in din g, t he trial court did not have di scretion to reassess whet her t he defendan ts' act ions were in

tentional or culpabl

y n eglige nt. See Alw in , 3 71 Ill . App. 3d at 91 0. Fu r t he r , t his
co ur t 's find ing be ca me b ind ing o n a ll su bs eq ue nt s tag esof li tigation, ev

en i f a " more detail

ed fac tual record" wasav ail ab l e af

ter rem and. Alw in , 371 Ill . App. 3d at 912-13. The plaint iff

s' final cont ent ion o n app eal is t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in not balancing t he equi tiesin t he ir

favo r. The y arg ue t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in no t or der ing the defe ndan ts to reduce th e s ize of th ei r a ddi ti on to l es s th an 1,5 00 sq ua ref eet. The trial cou rt' s determ

i na ti on of which alt er at ions s hou ld be r emove d is a d iscre t ionar y ruling and therefore will

not be dis

turbed absen

t an abuse of

dis cretion. See Schnuc

k Market s, In c. v . Soff er , 213 Ill . App. 3d 957, 974 (1991). Facto rs that may be consi dered wh en det er mini

ng t he appropriate remedy

for the vi olation of an eas ement inc lud e ( 1) t he int en t o f t he pa r t ies at t he t imeNo. 2-- 09--1345

-13-

t he eas ement was ent er ed int o; (2 ) t he pu rp o se o f t he ea se men t ; ( 3) t he impa ct o f t he vio lat io n in rel ati on to th e pur

pos e of th e e as em

en t; (4) t he pl ain

tiff 's i nterest in enfor cing t he ea sement ; (5 ) t he po ss ible hardsh

ip to the defen

dant associ ated with the rem oval of the encroachi

ng structure; and (6)
r ea so na ble al

ternatives to the removal

of the enc

roachin g structur e. Sc h

n uc k M ar ke ts , 213 Ill . App. 3d at 975-76. W e do not

believe t hat t he t rial co ur t abus ed it s discr et ion in no t or der ing th e def en da n ts to reduce t he size o f the ir ad dit ion. We note that, in ma kin g its decisi on, the trial

court adhered to our pri ordeci si on and consi

dered to gether all

the al terat ions that h ad v i ol ate d th

e c on se rvati on ea se men t. The tria l courtordered t hat the trees and the ve getation that vio lat ed t he ea se men t be r emo ve d a s w ell
as t he po rt ion o f the circle d rivew ay tha t encr oa ched on t he area pro tected b

y the e ase men t. In det er mini ng t hat it w ou ld no t or der t he r emova l of t he ad dit ion o r t he r est or at ion o f the hou se, t he trial court specifi

cally found that such

removal would be

greatly dis propo rtionate to any

mi ni ma l enhanc ement of

th e e as em

en t' s pur pos e. Th i s f i n di n g i s c on siste

n t wi th the evi dence prese

nted at t he he ari ng . Cov i ng ton a nd Ch ri sty tes ti f i ed tha t the addi ti on ascon stru

cte d di d n ot inter fere wit h t he purpo se of

the ea semen t, b ec au se the addi ti on wa s n ot v i si b l e f rom Sheri da n Roa d. B oth Wa rdeb erg and Sull iv an testif ie d th at th e def en da n ts would i ncur sub stantial

costs (o r in

cur a substantial

fi nan ci al loss ) w er e t hey req uire d t o r emove t he ad dit ion. In so ru ling, we re

ject t he pla

in tif fs ' argum ent that the tr ia

l court erred

i n f i ndi ng th at there
wo uld be o nly a min imal e nha nc eme nt t o t he co nse r va t io n e as eme nt if the s ize of

the a ddi tion were reduced to 1, 500 square f eet. The plai

ntif fs argue that the tr ia

l co ur t 's ord er rendered meani ngl ess t he pr ov i si

on s of th e c on se rvati on ea se men t re l ati n g to the si zeof the addi ti on and thus wasi m proper. See Sriv astava v. Rus sell' s Barbecue , Inc. , 168 Il l . Ap p. 3d 72 6, 730 (19 88) . I n ot her t er ms, t heNo. 2-- 09--1345

-14-

pla int iffs ar e e ss en

ti al l y argui n g th at th e tr i al cou rt c oul d do n othi n g oth er th an ord er th e def en da n ts to red uc e the s izeof

the i r ad di ti on to l es s th an 1,5 00 sq ua ref eet. Thus , once

agai n, the pl ai ntif f s are attack ing the tri al cou rt' s a bi l i ty to us e i ts e qui tab l e p owers to de term

i ne how a v i ol at io n o f a con serv ati

on eas ement sho uld be r emedied . As w e exp lained in Bj ork I , b as ed on the ci rcumstances of this case, the court's use of i

ts equitabl

e powers was proper. See Bj ork I , 381 Ill . App. 3d at 543. The plai ntif fs also insist

that t he v iolation was n

ot mi ni ma l. A s the plai

ntif fs observe, the trial courtind ica t ed t ha t , if it wereau th ori ze d to im pose a fi ne, i t would consider im

posin g one of between $200,000 an

d $4 00, 000 . The p l ai

nti f f s a rgue that the tri

al cou rt' s c ons i de rati

on of suc h a larg e fine "c l ea rl y i n di ca tes th e m ag n i tude of th e v i ol ati on b y [the def en da n ts] wa s n ot de m in im us [ sic ]." W e do not b el

i eve that the tri

al cou rt' s c ons i de rati

on of i mposi ng a l arge fi ne dem onstrates that i t ab us ed i ts d i scre ti on i n n ot orderi

n g th e def en da n ts to red uc e the s izeof

thei r addi tion . Rather, we b el i ev e th at th e tr ial c ourt 's cons ide

ration of such

a fi ne i ndicates that it consi dered num erous f actors be f ore dec i di ng w ha t was the m

ost equi tabl e way to resol ve the c ase be f ore it. Thus, the trial court 's cons ide

ration of the i

mposi tion of a f in e i s not a basi s to disturb i ts ruli ng. The pla int iffs a dd it io na lly argue t hat t he t rial co ur t 's o rd er was impro per beca use t he de f en da n ts fai le d to present any

evi dence of the cost t o reduce t he si

ze of the a ddi tion to 1,500 sq

uare f eet. The plai

ntif fs i nsi st t hat t he evide nce t he defend ant s did p ro duc e, re gar ding t he co st t o r emove the entire addition, was irrelev ant because the plai

ntif fs were not seeking that relief . The plai ntif fs'
ar gu me nt is witho ut meri t. At the h

eari ng, W ardeb erg testif

i ed th at the c ost to remov e the en tire addi ti on would be $769,915. He further testif ie d that it was n

ot possib le

to arbi traril y reduce the si ze of t he ad dit io n by s o me a mo un t , be ca us e d emo lishin g o nly a p o r t io n a nd mo dif yin g the remai

nderNo. 2-- 09--1345

-15-

mightco st mor e t han r emoving t he ent ire ad dit ion. Ward eber g's testim ony the refore establ

is hed that t he co st t o r ed uc e t he siz e o f t he ad dit io n t o jus t 1, 50 0 s qu ar e fe et wo uld be su bst an t ial. We also reject the plai

ntif fs' argumen ts that t he trial

co ur t neithe r c ons ider ed t he plaint iff s' and t he publ ic 's i nterest in enf orcing the cons ervation easem ent nor consi dered the ben efi ts of reduced taxes th e def

en da n ts rece i ve d by vi rtue of the c onse rva tion eas em en t. In anno uncing it s de cision, t he trial co ur t sp ec ifica lly st at ed t ha t it ha d c o nsid er ed t he be ne fit s t o t he pla in tif fs and t he pu blic in general i n en f orc i n g th e e as em en t. As t o t he de fendant s' bene fits o f red uce d t axes , w e ag re e wit h t he defen dants that the Lake County as sessor rema in s f ree to assess the propert y i n an y a mount i t sees fit , given t he ea sement an d t he ad di t io n. Ac co r di ng ly, the pla in tif fs ' l ast argumen

ts are also wi

thout
meri t. For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f L ake County is af fi rmed. Af fi rmed. BOW MA N an d HUTC HINSO

N, JJ ., conc

ur.