Court Opinion

ID: 9724672
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:07:40.046028+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:04.225976
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McDADE, specially concurring: The majority has affirmed the decision of the circuit court of Hancock County denying defendant traverse. I believe this was the correct decision and, therefore, concur. As acknowledged by the majority, Department of Transportation ex rel. People v. Hunziker, 342 Ill. App. 3d 588 (2003), includes an express instruction that it should not be applied retroactively. Because the present case was already pending when Hunziker was decided, the trial court’s order is consistent with that decision and is correctly affirmed on that basis. I write separately because, in a purely gratuitous discussion, the majority has also concluded that Hunziker was wrongly decided. Eminent domain proceedings allow the State to take private property from an unwilling seller, but only for fair compensation. Because of the overbearing nature of the transaction, the State is not entitled to the same right to hold its cards close to its vest as is given to participants in an arm’s-length real estate transaction. Accordingly, the legislature has required that the “basis” for the State’s offer should be disclosed to the seller. If an appraisal is part of that basis, it too should be disclosed. Accordingly, I do not agree with the majority’s evaluation of Hunziker.