Court Opinion

ID: 9395600
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-18 15:05:48.909098+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:09.693193
License: Public Domain

2023 IL 128612

                                          IN THE
                                 SUPREME COURT
                                              OF
                            THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

                                     (Docket No. 128612)

     THE VILLAGE OF KIRKLAND, Appellee, v. KIRKLAND PROPERTIES HOLDINGS
                       COMPANY, LLC I et al., Appellants.

                                  Opinion filed May 18, 2023.

          JUSTICE OVERSTREET delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

          Chief Justice Theis and Justices Neville, Holder White, Cunningham,
       Rochford, and O’Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.

                                          OPINION

¶1         Plaintiff, the Village of Kirkland (Village), filed its third amended complaint
       against defendants, Kirkland Properties Holdings Company, LLC I, and Kirkland
       Properties Holdings Company, LLC II (hereinafter KPHCI, KPHCII, and
       collectively defendants), in the De Kalb County circuit court. In its third amended
       complaint, the Village alleged that defendants breached a 2003 recorded annexation
     agreement executed by it and the National Bank and Trust Company of Sycamore
     as trustee of trust No. 4235000 (Trustee), then legal owner of property now
     consisting of an annexed 114-acre subdivision. The Village alleged that defendants
     were subject to the terms of the annexation agreement as successor owners of record
     to the Trustee when they purchased undeveloped portions of the property from
     Plank Road, LLC (Plank Road) (not a party to this appeal), which had acquired the
     property from the Trustee. The Village alleged that defendants breached the
     annexation agreement by refusing its request for a letter of credit in the amount
     proportionate to the number of lots defendants owned in the subdivision, to secure
     completion of roads in the subdivision as it was developed. The Village sought
     damages for breach of contract or, in the alternative, equitable relief in the form of
     specific performance.

¶2       Defendants moved to dismiss the Village’s third amended complaint pursuant
     to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West
     2018)), arguing that, although the annexation agreement was a covenant that ran
     with the land, it did not confer successor status to an entity that purchased only a
     portion of the property subject to annexation, as opposed to the whole of the
     property. See generally Streams Sports Club, Ltd. v. Richmond, 99 Ill. 2d 182, 188
     (1983) (covenant that runs with the land is binding on subsequent owners). The
     circuit court agreed and dismissed the Village’s third amended complaint. Having
     secured the dismissal of the complaint against them, defendants moved for attorney
     fees pursuant to prevailing-party attorney-fee provisions in the annexation
     agreement, and the circuit court granted their request.

¶3       The Appellate Court, Second District, reversed the circuit court’s ruling that
     defendants were not bound by the terms of the annexation agreement and vacated
     the award of attorney fees. We hereby affirm the appellate court’s decision, reverse
     the circuit court’s decision, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
     opinion.

¶4                                   I. BACKGROUND

¶5      In reviewing the propriety of a dismissal pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code
     (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)), we accept all well-pleaded facts in the complaint
     and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from those facts as true. Tuite v.

                                             -2-
     Corbitt, 224 Ill. 2d 490, 509 (2006). Accordingly, the following facts are drawn
     from the allegations of the Village’s complaint and its attached exhibits.

¶6                                      A. Annexation

¶7       On January 31, 2002, Edward Vander-Molen transferred title to real property
     to the Trustee of the aforementioned trust, the beneficiaries of which consisted of
     David R. Rood, Barbara L. Rood, Robert D. Rood, and Ann M. Rood. On May 5,
     2003, the Village entered into the annexation agreement with the Roods and the
     Trustee, whereby the Village agreed to annex and incorporate into its municipal
     boundaries approximately 114.27 acres of property that had been transferred to the
     trust by Vander-Molen. In exchange, the Roods and the Trustee agreed to develop
     the property into a residential subdivision, which required the completion of certain
     public improvements on the property.

¶8       The annexation agreement stated that it was executed pursuant to and in
     accordance with the provisions of article 11, division 15.1, of the Illinois Municipal
     Code (65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-1 to 11-15.1-5 (West 2002) (titled “Annexation
     Agreements”)). The annexation agreement also identified the beneficial owners, the
     Roods, and the legal owner, the Trust, as the collective “[l]andowner” who desired
     to annex the “[s]ubject [p]roperty” to the Village and to develop a residential
     subdivision according to an attached preliminary subdivision plat. The “[s]ubject
     [p]roperty” was identified as the real estate described in an attached exhibit, which
     consisted of the 114.27 acres of land located west of the Village’s corporate limits.

¶9       According to the annexation agreement, the Village had concluded that the
     annexation of the property into the Village, under the terms and conditions set forth
     in the annexation agreement, “would further the orderly growth and quality of life
     of the Village,” “enable the Village to control the development of the area,” and
     “serve the best interests of the Village.” The annexation agreement provided that

        “the development of the [s]ubject [p]roperty for the use as permitted under the
        [z]oning [o]rdinance of the Village and in accordance with the terms and
        conditions of this [Annexation] Agreement, will inure to the benefit and
        improvements of the Village and its residents, *** promote the sound planning

                                             -3-
          and development of the Village[,] and *** otherwise enhance and promote the
          general welfare of the people of the Village.”

¶ 10       Pursuant to section 3 of the annexation agreement, the Village agreed to, within
       60 days of the execution of the annexation agreement, enact a valid and binding
       ordinance annexing the subject property to the Village and rezone the property to
       single family residential zoning. In section 5 of the annexation agreement, the
       parties acknowledged that the property would be developed in stages, requiring the
       submission of plats and plans for each stage or unit.

¶ 11       In the annexation agreement, the landowner agreed to provide “proper storm
       drains and water main systems” (section 7) and “storm water storage” (section 11)
       “in accordance with the Village’s standards and ordinances.” Moreover, the Village
       agreed that, upon the landowner’s proper completion of construction and
       satisfactory testing of, inter alia, the storm sewer and water main systems (section
       7) and the well and water supply and distribution facility (section 9), “the Village
       shall promptly accept such improvements and thereafter maintain such
       improvements.”

¶ 12       In section 10 of the annexation agreement, the landowner agreed to “construct
       all roadways required to be developed on the [s]ubject [p]roperty.” Pursuant to
       section 10, the roadways were to be constructed, with certain exceptions, in
       accordance with the Village’s standards and ordinances. Section 10 provided, in
       pertinent part:

          “Prior to the occupancy of any building, the gravel base shall be constructed to
          the approved thickness. Once 50% of the buildings in a particular phase are
          occupied, no further occupancy permits shall be issued for that phase until the
          first layer of the bituminous surface has been installed throughout that phase
          [i.e., until the road was complete to a certain stage of development]. Once 80%
          of the buildings in a particular phase are occupied, no further occupancy permits
          shall be issued for that phase until the final layer of the bituminous surface has
          been installed throughout that phase, [i.e., until the road was complete to a
          certain, later stage of development]. The [l]andowner shall maintain the stone
          base and shall seal coat the same to control dust if required by [the] Village
          prior to the installation of the bituminous surface. Landowner shall be
          responsible for maintenance and snow removal on all roads in the subdivision

                                              -4-
          until said roads are accepted by the Village. Upon the proper completion of the
          street construction, the Village shall promptly accept such improvements and
          thereafter maintain such improvements.”

¶ 13       Section 13 provided that the landowner shall dedicate the roadways, public
       improvements, certain water lines, and certain storm sewers to the Village, and
       “[t]he Village shall promptly accept such improvements upon completion of
       construction *** and thereafter maintain such improvements.” Section 14 of the
       annexation agreement provided as follows:

          “In lieu of a construction bond or development bond or bonds, the Village will
          require an irrevocable letter of credit from a financial institution to guarantee
          construction and quality of all public facilities to be constructed in any stage or
          unit of development for which approval is sought. Said letter of credit shall be
          in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the contract costs of
          construction of all of the public facilities in the unit or stage or one hundred
          twenty five percent (125%) of [l]andowner’[s] engineer’s contract estimate for
          the unit or stage as approved by the Village [e]ngineer; and said letter of credit
          shall be payable to the Village.

             As the [l]andowner completes items within each letter of credit, subject to
          approval by the Village [e]ngineer, the letter of credit shall be abated
          accordingly. Landowner agrees to cause the letter of credit to be extended to
          cover the actual time of construction.”

¶ 14       Section 27 provided for a 20-year term for the annexation agreement, and
       section 28, subsection I, stated:

          “All terms and provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the
          benefit of, and be enforceable by the parties hereto, their heirs, executors,
          administrators, successors[,] and assigns.”

¶ 15       The annexation agreement was recorded with the De Kalb County Recorder’s
       Office. Pursuant to the provisions of the annexation agreement, the Village annexed
       the property to the Village, rezoned the property to allow for single family
       residential homes, and approved two final plats of the subdivision with the De Kalb
       County Recorder’s Office. As a result of the annexation agreement, the subdivision

                                               -5-
       lots on the property have access to water mains and Village treatment plant services,
       and the Village provides potable water for the subdivision.

¶ 16       On November 30, 2011, the Trustee transferred title to 41 of the 82 lots that
       comprised the subject property to Plank Road. In 2017, Plank Road transferred title
       to approximately 34 of the 41 lots it owned to defendants (15 to KPHCI and 19 to
       KPHCII) by special warranty deeds, subject to “the [p]ermitted [t]itle [e]xceptions,
       as described on” an attached exhibit, which listed the annexation agreement and
       ordinance annexing the land.

¶ 17       On May 8, 2019, the Village sent demand letters to defendants requesting that
       they deposit a letter of credit in the proportionate amount of their lots in the
       subdivision and/or the amount of road frontage of such lots to secure the repair,
       completion, and/or replacement of the roads in the subdivision. Defendants did not
       deposit the requested letters of credit, nor did they complete the roads.

¶ 18                              B. Circuit Court Proceedings

¶ 19       As a result, on June 18, 2019, the Village filed its complaint against defendants,
       and on August 27, 2020, the Village filed a third amended complaint, seeking
       damages for breach of contract or, in the alternative, relief in the form of specific
       performance, requesting the circuit court order defendants to specifically perform
       section 14 of the annexation agreement and deliver a letter of credit, in a
       proportionate amount, to repair, construct, and/or replace the roads in phase one of
       the subdivision (KPHCI) and phase two of the subdivision (KPHCII). When the
       Village filed suit, KPHCI owned 15 of the total 56 lots in phase one of the
       subdivision while KPHCII owned 19 of the total 26 lots in phase two of the
       subdivision.

¶ 20       The Village alleged that by entering into the annexation agreement, which
       expressly provided that it was made pursuant to and in accordance with the
       annexation-agreement provisions of the Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-1 to
       11-15.1-5 (West 2002)), the original parties to the annexation agreement intended
       the annexation agreement’s provisions to run with the land and apply to successor
       landowners and, to that end, the annexation agreement was recorded with the
       Dekalb County Recorder’s Officer.

                                               -6-
¶ 21       The Village alleged that Plank Road was a successor of the Trustee, relative to
       the lots that it acquired by deed and, by extension, defendants were successors
       relative to the lots they received by special warranty deed from Plank Road.
       Accordingly, the Village argued that defendants were bound by the annexation
       agreement and were required to comply with section 14’s terms.

¶ 22       On October 16, 2020, defendants filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss (735
       ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018)) the Village’s third amended complaint, in which they
       argued that they were not bound by the annexation agreement because they owned
       less than the entire parcel annexed and encompassed by the annexation agreement.
       In defendants’ view, because the annexation agreement did not state that its
       provisions ran with “any portion of the land,” the annexation agreement involved a
       covenant that ran with the land in its entirety only, and once the land was sold in a
       configuration less than its entirety, the covenant ceased to apply. Defendants argued
       that, because they owned a subset of the originally described land, they could not
       be considered successor owners under section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code. 65
       ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 (West 2002) (“[a]ny annexation agreement executed pursuant to
       this Division 15.1 *** shall be binding upon the successor owners of record of the
       land which is the subject of the agreement and upon successor municipal
       authorities”). Defendants conceded that, under their interpretation, they would have
       no standing to compel the Village to fulfill its obligations under the annexation
       agreement, stating: “[T]hat’s a problem in this case, because we have a
       neighborhood that is not developed, despite [the Village] once having an adequate
       security bond. So this ruling will cut both ways.”

¶ 23       The Village responded that section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code (id.),
       incorporated by law into every annexation agreement, mandated that the annexation
       agreement was binding on the successor owners of record, not just those that
       purchased the property in its original configuration. The Village also asserted that
       the provisions in the annexation agreement contemplated the property being
       subdivided and evidenced an intention that they run with the land, whether the land
       was transferred in its entirety or subdivided and portioned off to different
       developers. The Village referred, specifically, to those provisions concerning
       infrastructure and stormwater requirements that would be “completely
       unnecessary” if the annexation agreement were to apply only to a property owner
       who retained the whole acreage.

                                               -7-
¶ 24       On December 7, 2020, the circuit court agreed with defendants and dismissed
       with prejudice the Village’s third amended complaint. At the hearing on the motion
       to dismiss, the circuit court found that section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code was
       silent regarding whether a purchaser of less than all of the land that is the subject
       of an annexation agreement may be considered a successor owner bound by an
       annexation agreement. See id. Accordingly, citing Doyle v. Village of Tinley Park,
       2018 IL App (1st) 170357 (rejecting successor liability pursuant to annexation
       agreement where successor stepped into shoes of predecessor to sue predecessor),
       and United City of Yorkville v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland, 2019 IL App
       (2d) 180230 (finding successor liability pursuant to annexation agreement), the
       circuit court reasoned that, because defendants had purchased less than the whole
       of the land annexed, they were not successors under the annexation agreement and
       were not bound by its provisions.

¶ 25       The circuit court further cited Doyle for the proposition that, if the drafters of
       an annexation agreement “intended to confer successor status upon each and every
       purchaser of a lot within a subdivision[,] as opposed to a developer who purchased
       the entire subdivision, the agreement would have expressly” included the language
       “successor owners of record of the subject property *** and/or any portion thereof.”
       The circuit court distinguished Yorkville, 2019 IL App (2d) 180230, ¶ 99, finding
       that the annexation agreement in that case contained a provision that acknowledged
       that a successor developer may own a portion of the subject property and remain
       bound by the agreement.

¶ 26       On December 17, 2020, following the circuit court’s dismissal of the complaint,
       defendants filed a motion for an award of attorney fees, asserting that they were
       entitled to contractual attorney fees and costs as prevailing parties under the
       annexation agreement. On March 17, 2021, after a hearing on the issue, the circuit
       court determined that defendants had a contractual right to file the motion for fees
       under the prevailing-party terms of the annexation agreement. Accordingly, on June
       2, 2021, after considering the reasonableness of defendants’ attorney fees and costs,
       the circuit court entered its final judgment in favor of defendants and against the
       Village, awarding attorney fees and costs in the amount of $19,381.24.

                                               -8-
¶ 27                             C. Appellate Court Proceedings

¶ 28       The Village appealed, and the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s ruling
       that defendants were not bound by the terms of the annexation agreement. 2022 IL
       App (2d) 200780. The appellate court reviewed Doyle, Yorkville, and City of Elgin
       v. Arch Insurance Co., 2015 IL App (2d) 150013 (finding successor liability
       pursuant to annexation agreement), and concluded that the annexation agreement
       applied to defendants as successor owners of the annexed property, even though
       they owned only a portion of the original configuration described in the annexation
       agreement. 2022 IL App (2d) 200780, ¶ 37. The appellate court distinguished
       Doyle, 2018 IL App (1st) 170357, ¶ 32 n.3, finding it presented “an irregular and
       easily distinguishable fact pattern.” 2022 IL App (2d) 200780, ¶ 51. The appellate
       court held that

          “although the Yorkville annexation agreement expressly referred to successors
          who owned just a portion of the subject property, whereas the Annexation
          Agreement in our case does not, the public policy concerns expressed in
          Yorkville[, i.e., ensuring the fulfillment of an annexation agreement governing
          a unitary tract of land later divided and sold to different developers,] are equally
          compelling in the instant case.” Id. ¶ 52.

¶ 29       The appellate court held that “[t]he view that proportionate responsibility under
       an annexation agreement is a common and workable scenario is further supported
       by [its] opinion in Elgin, 2015 IL App (2d) 150013.” Id. ¶ 53. The appellate court
       noted that in Elgin it had “declined to subscribe to the Doyle court’s concern that
       conferring successor status on those who purchase a portion of the subject property
       such that they will be bound by an annexation agreement would have the
       unintended consequence of burdening ordinary homeowners with municipal
       development responsibilities.” Id.

¶ 30       The appellate court concluded “that the Annexation Agreement contemplated
       that the subject property would be divided and sold, potentially to different
       developers, who would be proportionally bound by the Annexation Agreement,
       which was a covenant that ran with the land.” Id. ¶ 55. Noting that the annexation
       agreement set forth that the subject property was to be developed and subdivided
       in stages or phases, the appellate court held that this sort of division is amenable to
       practical application. Id. ¶¶ 56-57. The appellate court noted:

                                                -9-
          “For example, section 14 of the Annexation Agreement, addressing the
          irrevocable letter of credit at issue here, is workable in the event that multiple
          developers separately owned portions of the subject property. Again, that
          provision stated that the ‘[l]andowner would secure an irrevocable letter of
          credit *** from a financial institution payable to the Village to guarantee the
          quality construction of all public facilities to be constructed at any unit or stage
          of development for which approval is sought. The letter of credit would be in
          the amount of 100% of the contract costs of construction in the unit or stage of
          development or 125% of the [l]andowner engineer’s contract estimate in the
          unit or stage of development.’ (Emphasis added.) The Village here sought a
          letter of credit in an amount specific to the stage of development, for roads only,
          not for storm drains, etc., and in accordance with [defendants’] proportion of
          ownership.” Id. ¶ 57.

¶ 31       The appellate court further noted the “multiple provisions in the Annexation
       Agreement [(including sections 7, 9, 10, 13, and 27)] clarify[ing] that there is an
       end to any owner’s obligation to participate in the development of the property.”
       Id. ¶ 58. The appellate court held that “[t]hese provisions show that, following the
       completion and acceptance by the Village of any stage or phase of development,
       the responsibility for the improvements will lie with the Village and not with any
       subsequent purchaser.” Id.

¶ 32       Given these provisions, the appellate court held that it did not share the Doyle
       court’s concern that, under the Village’s interpretation, individual homeowners
       would be unduly burdened with the responsibility of municipal improvements. Id.
       ¶ 60. The appellate court held that, instead, the adoption of defendants’
       interpretation would lead to an absurd result. Id. By example, the appellate court
       explained that, “if the landowner had sold every lot but one to a new developer, in
       this case 81 of 82 lots, the new developer would not be a ‘successor’ and would not
       be bound by the terms of the Annexation Agreement.” Id. The appellate court
       stated:

          “This outcome would certainly undermine the public policy of ensuring that
          annexation agreements are adhered to so that municipal development may
          proceed in an orderly and predictable manner. [Citation.] Moreover, given that
          the Annexation Agreement contemplated the possibility that the subject

                                               - 10 -
          property might be subdivided and developed in stages, it would make little
          sense to interpret the agreement as no longer applying where a successor
          developer takes on the development of a subsequent stage of the development.
          Indeed, this is an absurdity that would potentially lead to stalled development,
          as the successor developer and the Village would have to commence new
          annexation negotiations.” Id.

       The appellate court concluded that the annexation agreement’s terms clearly
       contemplated that the subject property would be subdivided and developed in stages
       and phases, which is consistent with proportionally burdening successor owners
       with obligations under the annexation agreement. Id. ¶ 61.

¶ 33       The appellate court “conclude[d] that the original parties to the Annexation
       Agreement intended to confer successor status on those who purchase a portion of
       the subject property during the development phase, a result entirely consistent with
       the public policy favoring adherence to annexation agreements and the orderly
       progression of development.” Id. The appellate court thus held that the Village had
       properly pleaded that defendants were successor owners of record bound by the
       terms of the annexation agreement and that the Village’s complaint should have
       survived dismissal. Id. Because defendants were no longer the prevailing party, the
       appellate court vacated the circuit court’s award of attorney fees and costs. Id. ¶ 62.

¶ 34      On September 28, 2022, this court allowed defendants’ petition for leave to
       appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 315(a) (eff. Oct. 1, 2021).

¶ 35                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 36                                   A. Notice of Appeal

¶ 37       Initially, defendants argue that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the
       appeal of the circuit court’s decision because the Village’s notices of appeal did not
       contain prayers for relief. Courts of review have an independent duty to consider
       jurisdiction because a jurisdictional claim is a threshold issue that must be
       addressed before considering an appeal’s merits. People v. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d 32,
       36-37 (2009).

                                               - 11 -
¶ 38       Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303(b)(2) (eff. July 1, 2017) provides that a notice
       of appeal “shall specify the judgment or part thereof or other orders appealed from
       and the relief sought from the reviewing court.” “The filing of a notice of appeal ‘is
       the jurisdictional step which initiates appellate review.’ ” People v. Smith, 228 Ill.
       2d 95, 104 (2008) (quoting Niccum v. Botti, Marianaccio, DeSalvo & Tameling,
       Ltd., 182 Ill. 2d 6, 7 (1998)). A notice of appeal confers jurisdiction on a court of
       review to consider the judgments or parts of judgments specified. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d
       at 37. “Although the cases often speak in terms of jurisdiction, it is generally
       accepted that a notice of appeal is to be liberally construed.” Burtell v. First Charter
       Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427, 433 (1979).

¶ 39        “The purpose of the notice of appeal is to inform the prevailing party that the
       other party seeks review of the trial court’s decision.” Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d at 37. The
       notice of appeal “ ‘should be considered as a whole and will be deemed sufficient
       to confer jurisdiction on an appellate court when it fairly and adequately sets out
       the judgment complained of and the relief sought, thus advising the successful
       litigant of the nature of the appeal.’ ” Smith, 228 Ill. 2d at 105 (quoting Lang v.
       Consumers Insurance Service, Inc., 222 Ill. App. 3d 226, 229 (1991)).
       Consequently, “ ‘[w]here the deficiency in notice is one of form, rather than
       substance, and the appellee is not prejudiced, the failure to comply strictly with the
       form of notice is not fatal.’ ” Id. (quoting Lang, 222 Ill. App. 3d at 230); see also
       General Motors Corp. v. Pappas, 242 Ill. 2d 163, 176 (2011).

¶ 40       On December 23, 2020, the Village filed its notice of appeal from the circuit
       court’s December 7, 2020, order dismissing its third amended complaint. Because
       defendants had filed a motion for an award of attorney fees and costs on December
       17, 2020, and the motion remained pending on December 23, 2020, the Village’s
       December 23, 2020, notice of appeal was premature. See Marsh v. Evangelical
       Covenant Church of Hinsdale, 138 Ill. 2d 458, 464 (1990) (an order is not
       appealable until all claims are resolved). On June 3, 2021, the Village filed its notice
       of appeal from the judgment of the circuit court entered on June 2, 2021, granting
       defendants’ petition for attorney fees and costs, which was based on the dismissal
       of the Village’s third amended complaint and defendants’ status as prevailing
       parties under the annexation agreement.

                                                - 12 -
¶ 41       The Village’s June 3, 2021, notice of appeal was sufficient to confer appellate
       jurisdiction over its challenge to the circuit court’s award of attorney fees and the
       circuit court’s dismissal of the Village’s third amended complaint, on which the
       circuit court based its award of attorney fees. See In re Marriage of O’Brien, 2011
       IL 109039, ¶ 23 (a notice of appeal confers jurisdiction even if order is not
       expressly mentioned in the notice of appeal, if that order was “ ‘a “step in the
       procedural progression leading” ’ to the judgment which was specified in the notice
       of appeal” (quoting Burtell, 76 Ill. 2d at 435, quoting Elfman Motors, Inc. v.
       Chrysler Corp., 567 F.2d 1252, 1254 (3d Cir. 1977))).

¶ 42       The June 3, 2021, notice of appeal, considered as a whole and construed
       liberally, adequately identified the circuit court’s judgment and informed
       defendants of the nature of the appeal. Lewis, 234 Ill. 2d at 39 (notice of appeal
       sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction because, considered as a whole and
       construed liberally, notice adequately identified challenged judgment and informed
       appellee of nature of appeal). Moreover, defendants do not argue they were
       prejudiced in any way by the notice of appeal, and it does not appear that they were.
       See People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666, ¶ 23 (failure to comply strictly with the
       form of notice is not fatal if appellee is not prejudiced). Because the Village’s notice
       of appeal, considered as a whole, fairly and adequately set out the judgment
       complained of and advised defendants of the nature of the appeal, we conclude that
       the appellate court properly exercised jurisdiction over the appeal.

¶ 43                                   B. Successor Liability

¶ 44       The circuit court dismissed the Village’s third amended complaint in favor of
       defendants and, accordingly, awarded defendants attorney fees and costs pursuant
       to a prevailing-party provision in the annexation agreement. A motion to dismiss
       pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code challenges the legal sufficiency of a
       complaint and asserts that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. 735
       ILCS 5/2-615 (West 2018); Cochran v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 2017
       IL 121200, ¶ 11. A section 2-615 motion presents the critical question of whether
       the facts alleged in the complaint, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff
       and taking all well-pleaded facts and all reasonable inferences from those facts as
       true, are sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Doe-

                                                - 13 -
       3 v. McLean County Unit District No. 5 Board of Directors, 2012 IL 112479, ¶ 16.
       Dismissal pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code is appropriate when the facts
       alleged do not constitute a cognizable claim or when the facts alleged conclusively
       demonstrate that, as a legal matter, the plaintiff has no right to recover from the
       defendant. Bryson v. News America Publications, Inc., 174 Ill. 2d 77, 86-87 (1996).
       We review de novo the dismissal of a complaint pursuant to section 2-615 of the
       Code. Wallace v. Smyth, 203 Ill. 2d 441, 447 (2002).

¶ 45       As aptly noted by the appellate court, the circuit court’s dismissal here was
       guided by its interpretation of section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code and by the
       language of the annexation agreement. Interpretation of statutes and contracts is
       also subject to de novo review. Valerio v. Moore Landscapes, LLC, 2021 IL
       126139, ¶ 20.

¶ 46       In the Village’s third amended complaint, the Village alleged breach of contract
       by defendants and sought money damages or specific performance. To properly
       allege a breach of contract claim, a plaintiff must plead “(1) the existence of a valid
       and enforceable contract, (2) substantial performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach by
       the defendant, and (4) damages caused by that breach.” Ivey v. Transunion Rental
       Screening Solutions, Inc., 2022 IL 127903, ¶ 28. To request specific performance,
       a plaintiff must allege a valid contract that is definite and certain in its terms so that
       the court can require a party to specifically perform it. Crocker v. Smith, 366 Ill.
       535, 537 (1937); see also White v. Lang, 401 Ill. 219, 223 (1948) (in specific
       performance suit, province of court is to enforce contract parties have executed).
       To consider either claim, we must determine whether defendants were bound as
       successors in title to the terms of the annexation agreement.

¶ 47        Citing Doyle, defendants argue that entities that purchase only portions of
       annexed land cannot be considered “successor owners of record of the land which
       is the subject of the agreement” under section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code (65
       ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 (West 2002)) or be bound as “successors” by an annexation
       agreement, unless the annexation agreement clearly and unambiguously states the
       agreement is binding on successor owners of the entire parcel “or any portion
       thereof.” We agree with defendants that, if the parties to the annexation agreement
       had included “or any portion thereof,” in the language of the annexation agreement,
       it would have precluded their argument here. However, we disagree with

                                                 - 14 -
       defendants that the absence of this language in the Municipal Code, or in section
       28 of the annexation agreement, precludes the conclusion that defendants are
       subject to successor liability as “successor owners of record of the land which is
       the subject of the agreement” pursuant to the Municipal Code (id.) and “successors”
       pursuant to the annexation agreement.

¶ 48                       1. Section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code

¶ 49       The Village argues that defendants’ assertion that they cannot be bound by the
       annexation agreement because they own only a portion of the annexed property
       defies the rules of statutory interpretation. The Village argues that defendants’
       proposed interpretation impermissibly reads into section 11-15.1-4 of the
       Municipal Code a limitation or exception that does not exist. The Village argues
       that nowhere in section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code does it state that, for an
       annexation agreement to be binding on a successor owner, the successor owner
       must own the entire parcel annexed. We agree.

¶ 50       “When construing a statute, the cardinal rule, to which all other rules and canons
       are subordinate, is to ascertain and give effect to the true intent of the legislature.”
       Nelson v. Kendall County, 2014 IL 116303, ¶ 23. “The best evidence of legislative
       intent is the language used in the statute itself, which must be given its plain,
       ordinary[,] and popularly understood meaning.” Id. “The statute should be
       evaluated as a whole, with each provision construed in connection with every other
       relevant section.” Id. When a statute’s language is clear, the language must be given
       effect without resort to other aids of statutory construction. Id. “[C]ourts may not
       depart from a statute’s plain language by reading into it exceptions, limitations, or
       conditions the legislature did not express.” People v. Burge, 2021 IL 125642, ¶ 20.

¶ 51       As iterated in the annexation agreement, annexation agreements further the
       orderly growth of municipalities, enable municipalities to oversee the annexed
       area’s development, and serve the municipality’s best interests. An annexation
       agreement inures to the benefit of the Village and its residents, promotes the sound
       planning and development of the Village, and enhances the general welfare of the
       people of the Village. See Village of Orland Park v. First Federal Savings & Loan
       Ass’n of Chicago, 135 Ill. App. 3d 520, 526 (1985) (annexation agreements serve
       to further important governmental purposes; discourage fragmentation and

                                                - 15 -
       proliferation of special districts; encourage expanding municipal areas; and “do so
       uniformly, economically, efficiently and fairly, with optimum provisions made for
       the establishment of land use controls and necessary municipal improvements
       including streets, water, sewer systems, schools, parks, and similar installations”).

¶ 52       “It is well established that the legislature alone has the authority to allow or
       require the alteration of municipal boundaries by annexation or otherwise.” In re
       Petition to Annex Certain Territory to North Barrington, 144 Ill. 2d 353, 361
       (1991). Our legislature has provided for the alteration of municipal boundaries in
       division 15.1 of article 11 of the Municipal Code.

¶ 53       Section 11-15.1-1 of the Municipal Code provides that municipalities may enter
       into agreements with landowners in unincorporated territories to annex the land to
       the municipalities and that such agreements are binding for periods not exceeding
       20 years. 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-1 (West 2002). Such an agreement annexes land to the
       municipality, thereby subjecting it to the municipality’s ordinances, control, and
       jurisdiction. Id. § 11-15.1-2.1.

¶ 54       Annexation agreements, including preannexation agreements like the
       annexation agreement here, wherein a municipality agrees with the record
       landowners to annex the land in return for contributions of land or monies or both,
       among other things, are authorized by section 11-15.1-2 of the Municipal Code.
       Id.§ 11-15.1-2. Generally, section 11-15.1-2 of the Municipal Code provides that
       any annexation agreement may allow for the annexation of territory to the
       municipality; the continuation of any ordinance relating to subdivision controls,
       zoning, and official plan; building, housing, and related restrictions; a limitation
       upon permit fee increases; contributions of either land or monies or both to the
       municipality and other governmental bodies; the granting of utility franchises for
       such land; the abatement of property taxes; and any other matter not inconsistent
       with the provisions of the Municipal Code nor forbidden by law. Id.

¶ 55       Section 15.1-4 of the Municipal Code addresses successor liability pursuant to
       an annexation agreement and provides:

          “Any annexation agreement executed pursuant to this [d]ivision 15.1 *** shall
          be binding upon the successor owners of record of the land which is the subject

                                              - 16 -
          of the agreement and upon successor municipal authorities of the municipality
          and successor municipalities.” Id. § 11-15.1-4.

       The plain language of division 15.1 of article 11 of the Municipal Code reveals the
       legislative intent to encourage the natural and orderly development of annexed
       areas among successive owners of the land that has been annexed to a municipality.
       See generally In re Petition to Annex Certain Territory to North Barrington, 144
       Ill. 2d at 365-66 (contiguity requirement in the annexation statute permitted the
       natural and gradual extension of municipal boundaries to areas that adjoin each
       other in a reasonably substantial physical sense). “It is axiomatic that a party cannot
       circumvent the purpose of the [annexation] statute by doing indirectly what he
       cannot do directly.” In re Petition of Kildeer to Annex Certain Territory, 124 Ill. 2d
       533, 547 (1988).

¶ 56       Black’s Law Dictionary defines “successor” as “[s]omeone who succeeds to the
       office, rights, responsibilities, or place of another; one who replaces or follows a
       predecessor.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1732 (11th ed. 2019). The American
       Heritage Dictionary offers a similar definition: “[o]ne that succeeds another.”
       American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1728 (4th ed. 2000). This
       same dictionary defines “succeed” as “to come after and take the place of.” Id.
       Indeed, that the plain meaning of “successors” includes defendants is revealed by
       the record here. Putting aside whether it amounted to an evidentiary admission,
       defendants, after being served with the Village’s initial complaint, filed a motion
       to dismiss stating that they “along with dozens of lot owners *** are the successors
       in interest” of the land comprising the subdivision here.

¶ 57       In this case, defendants acquired title to the undeveloped land at issue through
       Plank Road, which acquired title from the “[l]andowner,” i.e., the Trustee and the
       Roods, who had entered into the annexation agreement with the Village. “[T]he
       land which is the subject of the agreement,” pursuant to the plain language of
       section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code consists of the land annexed. Here,
       defendants’ property was annexed to the Village pursuant to the annexation
       agreement.

¶ 58       Accordingly, we reject defendant’s argument that the “the land which is the
       subject of the agreement” language found in the Municipal Code can only mean the
       land in its entirety and that, even though the land at issue here is included in the

                                               - 17 -
       description of the land that is the subject of the agreement, the covenants found in
       the annexation agreement are not binding on them. This court has historically
       recognized covenants running with the land even when the land had been
       apportioned. See Natural Products Co. v. Dolese & Shepard Co., 309 Ill. 230, 234-
       35 (1923) (when deed was executed, the defendant owned many lots, some of which
       had been sold to persons not parties to the suit, who would have the right to enforce
       covenant running with the land). Therefore, we agree with the appellate court’s
       conclusion that defendants were “successor owners of record of the land which is
       the subject of the agreement” (see 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 (West 2002)), even though
       they owned only a portion of the original configuration.

¶ 59                                 2. Annexation Agreement

¶ 60       “[A] ‘basic rule of the construction of contracts and a material part of every
       contract is that all laws in existence when the contract is made necessarily enter
       into and form a part of it as fully as if they were expressly referred to or incorporated
       into its terms.’ ” Sproull v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 2021 IL 126446, ¶ 20
       (quoting Illinois Bankers Life Ass’n v. Collins, 341 Ill. 548, 552 (1930)); see also
       Braye v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co., 175 Ill. 2d 201, 217 (1997) (“As a general
       principle of contract law, statutes and laws in existence at the time a contract is
       executed are considered part of the contract.”). Accordingly, section 11-15.1-4 of
       the Municipal Code is considered part of the annexation agreement, and thus, the
       annexation agreement is binding on defendants.

¶ 61       Defendants, as successor owners, have the right to accept the benefits of the
       annexation agreement and are required to take notice of it and be bound by it.
       Meeghan v. Village of Tinley Park, 52 Ill. 2d 354, 359 (1972) (party to annexation
       agreement, including successor owners, were empowered to enforce or compel
       performance of annexation agreement within statutory period). Having concluded
       that statutory authority requires that the annexation agreement is binding upon
       defendants, as “successor owners of record of the land which is the subject of the
       agreement” (see 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 (West 2002)), we turn to the annexation
       agreement to consider its specific language, its allocation of duties and obligations
       among the parties, and its provisions’ applicability to defendants. The parties and
       the appellate court cited Doyle, Yorktown, and Elgin as guiding cases wherein the

                                                - 18 -
       court addressed whether successor owners of record were bound by annexation
       agreement provisions. We note, however, that each involved different annexation
       agreements, and all are necessarily limited to their contract-specific facts.
       Nevertheless, we address each case in turn.

¶ 62        Akin to their statutory argument, defendants cite Doyle to argue that, because
       the annexation agreement did not expressly provide that it was binding on successor
       owners of the subject property, or any portion thereof, then its provisions regarding
       development were binding only on successor owners of the subject property in its
       entirety. The Village, citing Yorkville, argues that there are no magic words to effect
       successor liability and that, when the annexation agreement is read in its entirety,
       it is clear that the drafters of the annexation agreement contemplated that the subject
       property would be subdivided and developed in phases, potentially by more than
       one developer. As such, the Village urges, the annexation agreement continues to
       apply to a subsequent owner who owns only a portion of the undeveloped property.

¶ 63        Similar to statutory construction, when construing a contract, the primary
       objective is to give effect to the contracting parties’ intent. Gallagher v. Lenart, 226
       Ill. 2d 208, 232 (2007). “A court must initially look to the language of a contract
       alone, as the language, given its plain and ordinary meaning, is the best indication
       of the parties’ intent.” Id. at 233. “Moreover, because words derive their meaning
       from the context in which they are used, a contract must be construed as a whole,
       viewing each part in light of the others.” Id. “The intent of the parties is not to be
       gathered from detached portions of a contract or from any clause or provision
       standing by itself.” Id.

¶ 64      In the case sub judice, section 28, subsection I, of the annexation agreement
       provides that all of its provisions are binding upon successors: “All terms and
       provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon, inure to the benefit of, and be
       enforceable by the parties hereto, their heirs, executors, administrators,
       successors[,] and assigns.” (Emphasis added.)

¶ 65       In Doyle, the Doyles’ house was damaged by faulty storm drains, which were
       outside the scope of their contract with the developer of the subdivision, Malone &
       Maloney, Inc. (Malone). Doyle, 2018 IL App (1st) 170357, ¶ 4. Accordingly, the
       Doyles filed suit, alleging that Malone breached its 1990 annexation agreement
       with the municipality to install a sewage system that was adequate to properly drain

                                                - 19 -
       water from properties in the subdivision. Id. ¶ 17. The Doyles claimed that they
       could enforce the annexation agreement as successor owners of record, citing the
       annexation agreement’s language that it “ ‘shall be binding upon *** successor
       owners of record of the [s]ubject [p]roperty.’ ” Id. In Doyle, the Appellate Court,
       First District, aptly noted that, if the Doyles were considered the successor owners
       of the property pursuant to the Municipal Code, they would succeed to Malone’s
       interest in the annexation agreement, not to the municipality’s, and thus, they could
       not sue Malone (in whose shoes they would be standing) for breach of the
       annexation agreement. Id. ¶ 32 n.3.

¶ 66       Nevertheless, the appellate court also rejected the Doyles’ argument that they
       were “successor owners of record” of the subdivision under the annexation
       agreement and the Municipal Code based on the annexation agreement’s successor
       liability clause. Id. ¶ 30. The appellate court stated:

          “If the drafters of the agreement intended to confer successor status upon each
          and every purchaser of a lot within the subdivision (as opposed to, say, a
          developer who purchased the entire subdivision property from Malone), the
          agreement would have said ‘successor owners of record of the [s]ubject
          [p]roperty or any portion thereof.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Id.

       The appellate court continued: “the statute refers to ‘successor owners of record of
       the land which is the subject of the agreement’ (65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 West 2012))
       but makes no reference to those who purchase only a small portion of that land.”
       Id. ¶ 31.

¶ 67       We agree with the appellate court in this case that Doyle presented an irregular
       and easily distinguishable fact pattern wherein the residential homeowner sought
       to stand in the shoes of the developer and simultaneously sue the developer (id. ¶ 32
       n.3). 2022 IL App (2d) 200780, ¶ 51. Nevertheless, we explicitly reject the
       appellate court’s holding in Doyle to the extent that the court held that a purchaser
       of less than the whole of property annexed pursuant to an annexation agreement
       cannot be considered subject to the agreement as a “successor owner[ ] of record of
       the land which is the subject of the agreement” pursuant to the Municipal Code (65
       ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 (West 2002)) or an annexation agreement.

                                              - 20 -
¶ 68        The Doyle court expressed concern that, if it adopted the Doyles’ interpretation
       of the annexation agreement and the statute, “then each and every homeowner in
       the subdivision would succeed to Malone’s interest in the property” and be bound
       to its development obligations. 2018 IL App (1st) 170357, ¶ 32. However, we find
       Doyle’s stated concern obiter dictum, limited to its irregular facts, and inapplicable
       here. Each annexation agreement, which is binding upon successor owners of
       record of the land which is the subject of the annexation agreement (65 ILCS 5/11-
       15.1-4 (West 2002)), must be construed pursuant to its own provisions.

¶ 69       For example, Yorkville presented a different, contract-specific scenario from
       Doyle. In Yorkville, the defendants claimed that their purchases of subdivision lots
       from the original developer made them merely successor “owners” under the
       annexation agreement with no duty to complete public improvements and develop
       the property. 2019 IL App (2d) 180230, ¶ 76. The named parties in the annexation
       agreement were the city, the “owners,” and the “developer” responsible for
       constructing the public improvements for the subdivision and furnishing letters of
       credit to guarantee completion. Id. ¶ 7. Section 9 of the agreement referred to the
       rights and duties of the developer and all successor developers of the property “ ‘or
       any parcel or phase thereof.’ ” (Emphasis omitted.) Id. ¶ 99. The successor-liability
       provision in section 22 of the annexation agreement provided that it “ ‘shall inure
       to the benefit of and be binding upon the [owners], [developer] and their successors
       in title and interest, and upon the [city,] and any successor municipalities of the
       [city],’ ” that it shall run with the land, but that “ ‘the obligations and duties of
       [owners] and [developer] hereunder shall not be deemed transferred to’ ” any
       purchaser of an empty lot or a lot improved with a dwelling unit who acquires it for
       residential occupation. Id. ¶ 7. Section 19 of the annexation agreement stated that
       development duties were not the responsibility of the owners but of the developer
       or future developer of the property, thereby binding a successor developer in the
       same manner that it bound the original developer. Id. ¶ 80.

¶ 70       In Yorkville, the Appellate Court, Second District, rejected the defendants’
       argument that they did not succeed to the duties of the original developer because
       they purchased less than the entire portion of land. Id. ¶ 107. The appellate court
       distinguished Doyle, holding that sections 9 and 22 indicated that development
       duties could indeed fall on a developer owning less than the entire property, in
       which case the liability would be proportionate to the amount of property that the

                                               - 21 -
       developer owns. Id. ¶ 99. The appellate court concluded that the annexation
       agreement “allow[ed] for the possibility of multiple successor developers, which
       would be jointly responsible for fulfilling the duties of the original developer.” Id.
       ¶ 107. The Yorkville court further held:

          “Not uncommonly, a unitary tract of land governed by an annexation agreement
          is later divided and sold to different developers, as happened in this case. The
          public policy in favor of ensuring the fulfillment of an annexation agreement
          [citation] would be frustrated if the succession of duties under section 11-15.1-
          4 continued only as long as the land remained under common ownership.” Id.
          ¶ 100.

¶ 71       City of Elgin v. Arch Ins. Co., 2015 IL App (2d) 150013, presented yet another
       contract-specific fact pattern. In Elgin, the annexation agreement required the
       original developer, identified as the “ ‘[o]wner’ ” or “ ‘[d]eveloper’ ” in the
       annexation agreement, to complete public improvements for a residential planned
       development. Id. ¶ 3. The annexation agreement expressly stated that the
       obligations to construct public improvements necessary to serve the development
       under the agreement constituted covenants that would run with the land and that
       the agreement would be binding on any successors of “ ‘all or any part of’ ” the
       property, as well as on any “ ‘successors in title of the [d]eveloper.’ ” Id. Paragraph
       45 of the annexation agreement also stated that sale of the property during the 20-
       year term would release the developer from all obligations and responsibilities to
       the sold portion and that those obligations would be assumed by the purchaser. Id.

¶ 72       Subsequent purchasers of unplatted and unimproved neighborhoods refused to
       complete the public improvements required under the agreement. Id. ¶¶ 6-7. With
       regard to whether the subsequent developers were liable to complete the obligations
       of the original developer under the annexation agreement, the circuit court had
       agreed that the obligation to complete the public improvements was a covenant that
       ran with the land. Id. ¶ 21. To analyze the pleadings, the appellate court accepted
       the circuit court’s holding, acknowledged that the following comments were not a
       final determination of the subsequent developer’s liability, but stated:

          “The [annexation agreement], which was recorded shortly after it was entered
          into, clearly provides that any subsequent development of the property must
          comply with the terms therein. The agreement provides that it is binding on

                                               - 22 -
          successors and assigns and that its terms constitute a covenant running with the
          land. Moreover, state law likewise provides that annexation agreements ‘shall
          be binding upon the successor owners of record of the land which is the subject
          of the agreement.’ 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-4 (West 2012). On the record before us,
          [the subsequent developer’s] successor liability would appear to be a matter of
          public record and statutory law, which is incorporated into every contract unless
          the contract provides to the contrary. [Citation.]” Id. ¶ 21.

¶ 73      The appellate court continued:

          “Paragraph 45 does not impose a universal and unlimited obligation to make all
          improvements anywhere in the development upon anyone who purchased
          property in the development. Rather, it imposes upon purchasers the obligations
          ‘of the [d]eveloper *** for the parcel sold.’ Thus, the obligations imposed upon
          any particular purchaser depend upon the obligations of [the original developer]
          that remain unsatisfied with respect to the specific ‘parcel sold.’ If these
          obligations have already been satisfied with respect to the parcel—as would be
          the case where [the original developer] or some other entity had already
          completed the improvements at issue with respect to the homes that were sold—
          the individual purchasing homeowners would not be subject to any liability
          under paragraph 45. Accordingly, they would not have an interest requiring
          protection.” Id. ¶ 40.

       Thus, as noted by the appellate court here, the appellate court in Elgin also declined
       to subscribe to the Doyle court’s concern that conferring successor status on those
       who purchase a portion of the annexed property would have the unintended
       consequence of burdening ordinary homeowners with the entirety of the municipal
       development responsibilities under the annexation agreement (id.). 2022 IL App
       (2d) 200780, ¶ 53.

¶ 74       We further agree with the appellate court that the annexation agreement here
       contemplated that the annexed property would be divided and sold, potentially to
       different landowners, who would be proportionally bound by the annexation
       agreement. The annexation agreement clearly sets forth that the annexed property
       would be developed as a subdivision in stages or phases. Multiple provisions in the
       annexation agreement enumerate an end to any owner’s obligation to participate in
       the property’s development. Sections 7, 9, and 10, covering improvements for

                                               - 23 -
       storm drains, well and water supply, and roadways, each provide that, upon proper
       completion, the Village shall promptly accept the improvements and thereafter
       maintain them. As aptly noted by the appellate court, these provisions reveal that,
       following completion and acceptance by the Village of any stage or phase of
       development, the responsibility for the improvements will fall upon the Village and
       not with any subsequent purchaser.

¶ 75       In this case, reading the annexation agreement as a whole, as we are required to
       do, we find that the plain language of the annexation agreement required its
       provisions to be binding and enforceable on the parties’ successors. Defendants are
       successors in title to the landowner in the agreement who agreed to development
       obligations. The obligations imposed upon any particular purchaser depend upon
       the obligations of the original developer that remain unsatisfied with respect to the
       specific parcel sold. See Elgin, 2015 IL App (2d) 150013, ¶ 40. If the obligations
       have already been satisfied, the individual purchasing homeowners would not be
       subject to any liability under the annexation agreement. Id.

¶ 76       Section 14 provides that, in lieu of a construction bond or development bond or
       bonds, the Village will require an irrevocable letter of credit from a financial
       institution to guarantee construction and quality of all public facilities to be
       constructed in any stage or unit of development for which approval is sought.
       Section 14 provides that, as the landowner completes items within each letter of
       credit, the letter of credit shall be abated accordingly.

¶ 77       As noted by the appellate court, section 14 is workable in the event that multiple
       developers separately own undeveloped portions of the subject property. 2022 IL
       App (2d) 200780, ¶ 57. Defendants purchased the property with full knowledge of
       the covenants and obligations to the Village. Pursuant to the annexation agreement,
       the Village’s action seeks damages or requests a letter of credit in an amount
       specific to the stage of development, for roadways only, and in accordance with
       defendants’ proportion of ownership. We conclude that the Village has sufficiently
       pleaded that defendants are successor owners of record bound by the terms of the
       annexation agreement and, as such, its complaint should have survived dismissal.
       Accordingly, because defendants are no longer the prevailing party, they are not
       entitled to attorney fees and costs pursuant to any prevailing-party provision in the

                                               - 24 -
       annexation agreement.

¶ 78                                 C. Specific Performance

¶ 79      Defendants argue, as an alternative basis to partially affirm the circuit court’s
       dismissal order, that the Village’s requests for specific performance in counts III
       and IV of its third amended complaint fail because the Village has an adequate
       remedy at law under its breach of contract claim.

¶ 80       Counts III and IV of the Village’s third amended complaint sought specific
       performance of the contract, requesting the circuit court to order defendants to issue
       an irrevocable letter of credit to the Village from a financial institution to guarantee
       completion of the roadway improvements contemplated in the annexation
       agreement. Section 11-15.1-4 of the Municipal Code provides that any party to an
       annexation agreement “may by civil action, mandamus, injunction[,] or other
       proceeding, enforce and compel performance of the agreement.” 65 ILCS 5/11-
       15.1-4 (West 2002). We agree with the appellate court that, because the Municipal
       Code expressly authorizes specific performance as a remedy, the Village’s requests
       remain viable despite the availability of other avenues of relief. See People ex rel.
       Carpentier v. Goers, 20 Ill. 2d 272, 276 (1960) (statute expressly authorizing
       issuance of injunction negated requirement to show inadequate remedy at law); see
       generally City of Shelbyville v. Shelbyville Restorium, Inc., 96 Ill. 2d 457, 458
       (1983) (city brought action seeking money damages and order compelling home
       builder to construct certain streets in subdivision as required by ordinance); Dolan
       v. Brown, 338 Ill. 412, 418 (1930) (where covenant running with land appeared in
       chain of title and record gave notice to purchaser of binding force of covenant, court
       of equity will interpose by injunction, thereby indirectly enforcing the performance
       of a negative covenant by prohibiting its breach).

¶ 81                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 82       For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the circuit court erred in
       determining that defendants were not bound by the terms of the annexation
       agreement because they owned only a portion of the land that was subject to the
       annexation agreement. Accordingly, the circuit court improperly dismissed the

                                                - 25 -
       Village’s actions against defendants and improperly awarded defendants attorney
       fees as a prevailing party under the annexation agreement. Instead, we agree with
       the appellate court’s opinion and affirm the appellate court’s judgment reversing
       the circuit court’s decision. We thereby reverse the circuit court’s judgment
       dismissing the Village’s third amended complaint, vacate the circuit court’s award
       of attorney fees, and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings consistent
       with this opinion.

¶ 83      Appellate court judgment affirmed.

¶ 84      Circuit court judgment reversed.

¶ 85      Cause remanded.

                                              - 26 -