Court Opinion

ID: 9719382
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:50:19.242385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:06.547010
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE TRAPP, specially concurring: I concur in the judgment awarding possession to the plaintiff, but do not agree with the conclusion that the respective interests of the defendant, lessee, and its lessor are properly determined in forcible entry and detainer. In arguing upon appeal, defendant urges that it is entitled to obtain the value of its interests under a lease. The issue is whether such interests, in fact, exist. The plaintiff acquired title by warranty deed in lieu of condemnation. The consideration paid to the lessor presumably represents the fair cash market value of the land. It is stated that the payment or consideration operates to the same effect as the payment of damages in condemnation. With such payment the plaintiff became entitled to possession. Where condemnation proceedings are litigated to judgment, the proper procedure is to assess damages for the whole of the land taken and then apportion the sum so fixed among the various interests. City of Vandalia v. Tate, 66 Ill.App.2d 488, 213 N.E.2d 787. Upon the facts of this case the issues raised by the defendant were not germane to the special purpose of forcible entry and detainer and were not properly determined in these proceedings. Vietmeier v. Kampen, 24 Ill.App.3d 633, 321 N.E.2d 512.