C.R.W.B. v. City Of Chicago

Filing 1

NOTICE of Removal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Dept, Law Div, case number (2011 L 09818) filed by City Of Chicago and including copy of state court summons, complaint, and exhibits to complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit State Court Summons & Complaint, # 2 Exhibit Exhibits attached to Complaint)(Graver, David)

~

t: I-

2121 - Served

2120 . Served
2220 . Not Served
2320 - Served By Mail

2221 . Not Senc(

2321 - Served By

2420 - Served By Publication

2421 - Served By

SUMMONS

ALIAS - SU.MMO)

11'DGMG

1(~!

\\\\11\1\\\'"
*00426953

(2/28/11) CCG NOOI

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
2()j, lLC~=O~j818

No. ~A~ .~NOAR/RonM F
¥ IMt. O=:J;~)!r:¡

The Citfbf~ tCSr¡£oi:nsel
C.R.W.B. Corporation
30 N. La Salle St., Suite 800

(Name all parties)
v.

Chicago, IL 60602

The City of Chicago

(!SUMMONS OALIAS SUMMONS
To each Defendant:

YOU ARE SUMMONED and required to tie an answer to the complaint in this cae, a copy of which is

Clerk of this Court at the

following loction: ·
hereto attached, or otherwise tie your appearance, and pay the required fee, in the Offce of the

ø Richard J. Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Room 801 , Chicago, Ilinois 60602

o

District 2 - Skokie
5600 Old Orchard Rd.
Skokie, IL 60077

o District 3 . Rollng Meadows

o District 4- Maywood ~

2121 Euclid

1500 Maybrook Ave. CJ ?J

O-h N N ffl
(1
o District 5 - Bridgeview 0 District 6 - Markham a Child Su~r!:.
Rollng Meadows, IL 60008

Maywood, I~153 ~ rn

10220 S. 76th Ave. 16501 S. Kedzie Pkwy. 28 North dâ;ilSt., Room.iOO "2

Bridgeview,IL 60455 Markham,IL 60428 Chicago, I~~ó. 60602 ~ rñ
You must tie within 30 days afte service of

this Summons, not ~l~~~ÀIm:nvice. %g:: ..~ - '0

IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, A JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT MAJiE~i!i&""ilAINST'YOU!FR THQ.ELIEF
REQUESTED IN THE COMPLAINT.

To the offcer: SEP 22 Z 011
This Summons must be returned by the offcer or otherl¡iMiMiN iOf~n for service, with endorsemelt of service and fees, if any, immediately after service. If service cannot be made, this Summons tall be returned so endorsec,¿

This Summons may not be served later than 30 days after its date. " ,
Atty. No.: 48038

Name: Siprut PC
Atty. for: Plaintiff

Address: 122 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 1850

WITNESS,

~~
'!i

.¡'i
.' ':tl

". ¡:
, -ft-

SEP 20,2.1
'Il

I

Clerk of Court

City/Stte/Zip: Chicago, IL 60603

Telephone: [phone]
Service by Facsimile Transmission wil be accepted at:
DOROTHY BROWN, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNT

J

.~

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION
)
)
)

C.R.W.B. CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

)

v.

".'

2üi iLüõ9B j;:,
Case No.

)
)

TIME ÖO~OO=J
L6==:-~'Tt
f-o ?'~ ~.J F. e r--. t '-:.: g-¡'"; ::"1 ~:: Q;

)

CITY OF CHICAGO,

Ct~i_£~~DA.~~;:~.~~QO~' -L

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

::':~

... -"L

)

Defendant.

U~ ,',~. v .
~l

)

U1
I.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff C.R,W.B. Corporation ("CRWB"), as and for its Complaint against the
Defendant, the City of

Chicago (the "City"), states as follows:

i. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. In 2009 CR WB purchased the ta certificate for a parcel of propert located in
Chicago's Lawndale neighborhood for approximately $30,000.00 (the "Propert"). Over the

the next year, CRWB invested time and money - nearly $22,000 - to keep the structure

course of

located on the Propert (the "Building") in a safe condition while it prepared renovation plans.
2. Less than two weeks after CR WB recorded the deed, a steady stream of

inspections commenced. Over the next 15 months, the Propert was inspected four times,

culminating in the City wrongfully demolishing the Building without giving any notice to

-

-...

CR WB under a false assertion of Police Powers.

3.

, (' ) '" ri

Adding insult to injury, the City not only failed to compensat~ ~ WB fCJ

--'~ ïl ..

demolishing the Propert, the City is now attempting to bil CRWB for the cost of~Almoliti~
(J

1--0
in -n

fromCRWB.
4.

::.7 -I

;:~ -.;-..

Accordingly, in this action, CRWB asserts claim fliP

condemnation/taking pursuant to the Ilinois and U.S. Constitutions; wrongful

:i
::

. ..
invei:
UI

'"

demolition;

, ;0
m

()
rn
--

~

m

o

intentional trespass; declaratory judgment; and a violation of CRWB's due process rights under
the Ilinois and U.S. Constitutions.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the City because: (a) the Propert is

located in Cook County, Ilinoi,s; (b) the Defendant resides and/or does business in Cook County,

which this action arose occurred in Cook County, Ilinois.

Ilinois; and (c) the transactions out of

735 ILCS 5/2-101 because the City resides in this County

6. Venue is proper under

District.

III. PARTIES
7. CR WB is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Ilinois.
8. The Defendant City is a municipal corporation with a population of over 500,000

persons, located in Cook County, Ilinois.

IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
9. The Propert is located within Chicago, Ilinois and is commonly descnbed as

1216 South Tnpp Avenue. It bears the permanent index number of 16-22-202-027-0000.
10. The propert at issue was sold at a Cook County tax sale in 2006. Three years

later, CRWB purchased the ta certificate for the propert for approximately $30,000. CRWBi
subsequently recorded the deed on July 15, 2009. The cost of the fiing and for legal action

regarding title to the propert, back taxes, and subsequent taes meant that CR WB spent an
additional $17,500 on the Propert.

i A Petition to Vacate the Tax Sale for the

Propert was fied in 2009, which CRWB was

,required to defend. See Case No. 2009-COVT-000149.
2

deed was fied until the time of the wrongful demolition,

11. From the time the

CRWB also paid approximately $4,500 to install a new fence around the Propert and to remove

garbage from the Propert. During the same time, CRWB also secured the boarded-up doors the building - fixed the fence, and cut the grass regularly.

both in the front and back of

12. Prior to CR WB gaining title to the Propert, it was inspected only three timesonce in 2005 and twice in 2008.

13. A mere twelve days after CRWB purchased the Propert, however, the City
inspected the propert. (Inspection # 1108283) (The "Building Data Warehouse Report,"
detailing all inspections, is attached hereto as Exhibit A). CR WB was not given notice of the

purported violations that were found. Only after the Building was demolished did CR WB
ultimately become aware of the violations through the City's Department of Buildings website.

14. On October 9, 2009, the City conduct~ another inspection of the Propert.
(Inspection # 2825240). Th~ City claimed that the Propert was in violation of the Vacant

Building Ordinance. Again, however, CR WB was not given notice of the violations and learned
of

them only by visiting the City's websit,e after d~molition.
15. Next, on January 4,2010, the City conducted Inspection # 2854555. See Exhibit

A. During that inspection, the City discovered six violations of the Housing Code. Yet again,
these violations and learned of

CRWB was not given notice of

them only by visiting the City's

website after demolition.

16. Then, on October 5, 2010, the City conducted yet another inspection. (Inspection

# 10007562). The building inspector indicated that the Building was "52% deteriorated," based
on an arbitrary assignment of deterioration percentage for a variety of construction elements. (the
"Inspection Checklist"

is attched hereto as Exhibit B). While the Building was not by any

3

4

qualify for demolition under a Police Powers theory, as the Building did not constitute an
imminent danger to public safety.

21. Because the City did not have a good-faith basis to assert its Police Powers to
summarily demolish the Building, the City should have followed the procedures set out in the
City's Municipal Building Code. Under Chapter 13-9 of the Code, the City was required to 1)
post a notice on the Building that the City intended to demolish the Building; and 2) no less than
30 days after posting the notice, give CR WB notice by certified mail, publication, and by fiing a

notice with the office of the recorder of deeds and registrar of title. Only after mailing notice
was the City allowed to demolish the Building, However, no notice was ever mailed and thus
CR WB was never given the opportnity to óbject to the demolition.
22. After the City's wrongful demolition of CRWB's propert, the City assessed the

costs of demolition _ $17,250.00 - to CR WB. (Demand Letters attched hereto as Exhibit C).

The, City has threatened to send CR WB to a collection agency and notify the Credit Bureaus if
CRWB does not pay the full amount immediately. (See Exhibit C)

V. CLAIMS ALLEGED
COUNT I
Inverse CondemnationlTaking
Pursuant to the Illnois and U.S. Constitutions
23.

CR WB hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 22 by reference as if fully set

forth herein.
24.

The City did not obtain a condemnation order against CRWB's Building or the

Propert prior to directing that the Building be demolished, nor has the City ever compensated
CR WB for its losses as a result of the Building being demolished.

5

i

25. CRWB's propert was taken, pursuant to the City's plan, for the following public
purposes, among others: (i) to appease members of the public who viewed the propert as an

eyesore, despite the fact that it was not a nuisance, dangerous or hazrdous; and/or (ii) to
increase propert values and propert taxes in the area.
of private
26, The City's demolition of the Building was a taking or damaging

propert without just compensation.

27. CRWB demands that the amount of compensation owed as a result of the City's

the Building be determined by tnal by jury.

demolition of

WHEREFORE, CR WB requests judgment against the City of Chicago on Count I of this

Complaint, for an award of compensation and such fuher relief as this Court deems appropriate.

COUNT II
Wrongful Demolition

28. CRWB hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 27 by reference as if fully set
forth herein.

29. The City demolished the Building without notice to the lawful owner, without

leave or lawful order of court, and without venfication by the City that the owners of the
Propert were given notice and verification that said demolition was authorized.

30. The City, without authorization, wrongfully converted for their own use and

assumed control, dominion, or ownership over CRWB's propert as described above despite
the propert.
CRWB's absolute and unconditional right to immediate possession of

31. As a result of

the City's conduct, CRWB has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, CR WB requests judgment against the City on Count II of this Complaint

and for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and costs, and such
furter relief as this Court deems appropriate.

6

COUNT ILL

Intentional Trespass

32. CRWB hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 31 by reference as if fully set
forth herein,

33. The City intentionally demolished the Building without notice to the lawful
owner, without leave or lawful order of court, and without verification by Defendants that the
owner of the Property was given notice and verification that said demolition was authorized.
34. The City acted with knowledge that its conduct would result in an unauthorized

physical invasion of CRWB's possessory interest in the Propert and the Building. Further, it
was aware that it would result in the intentional demolition of the Building without notice or
lawful order of court, which did, in fact, occur.
35. As a result of

the City's conduct, CRWB has been damaged.

WHEREFORE, CRWB requests judgment against the City on Count II of this
Complaint and for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and costs, and
such further relief as this Court deems appropriate.
IV

COUNT

Declaratory Judgment
36. CR WB hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 35 by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
37. An actual justiciable controversy exists between CRWB and the City concerning

CRWB's obligation to pay the costs of demolition.
38. Pursuant to Ilinois law, CRWB seeks a declaration concerning the parties' rights

and obligations with regards to the cost of demolition.

7

WHEREFORE, CR WB requests that this Court enter a Declaratory Judgment that

CR WB is not obligated to pay the City for the cost of demolishing the Building and award such
other remedies as the Court deems appropriate.
V

COUNT

Violation Of Due Process
Pursuant to the Ilinois and U.S. Constitutions

39. CRWB hereby incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 38 by reference as if fully set
forth herein.
40. There was no emergency requiring the immediate demolition ofCRWB's

Building.
41. CR WB was not given any notice that the Building would be tom down and its
components taken by the City.

42. Likewise, CR WB was not given an opportnity to be heard in an orderly

proceeding.
his propert interest in the Building
43. CRWB had a protected interest in the form of

and Propert.

44. CR WB was deprived of that interest without due process of law as required by the
Ilinois and U.S. Constitutions.

WHEREFORE, CR WB requests judgment against the City on Count V of this Complaint

and for an award of compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest and costs, and such
further relief as this Court deems appropriate.

8

Vi. JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all claims in this complaint so triable.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: September 20,2011
C.R.W.B. CORPORATION

By:

~

One of Plaintiffs Attorneys

Joseph J. Siprut

jsiprut(iprut.com
SIPRUT PC

122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1850

Chicago, Ilinois 60603

312.588.1440
Fax: [phone]
Firm 1.0. 48038
Aleksandra M. S. VoId

avold(fvoldlaw.com
VoId, LLC
105 West Adams Street
Suite 2800
Chicago, Ilinois 60603
Telephone: [phone]

Firm 1.0. 48488

9

AFFIJAvtt PURSUAll'Ö it;~ft4:ØlS:,$Upø.r/a~tJiCOt:RT RIJL'EZ22
.......... . ... .
tinder pennltJes as prüvided by law puæaIt tn 73'5 fLeS 5/1-109,. tbe l"uidb'tignoo
~rtifies that the total ofmoneydatagø;'s6ttgltft'lthlff:oteg,,¡ng CGtiipla:iut excte $$0,000.

/' I V .. . . -/1,
't !4~
(/'--

~.........~l",Betrooz Mnnij, Offcer

¿~JtW:B.' Corpration

";;

fi.

10