 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. City of West Chicago2/8/2005
te of the nonmodification restriction, i.e., the date of the amendment, does not qualify as the date on which plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims accrued here.
The parties agree that plaintiffs' inverse condemnation claims are ripe and dispute only the date on which they ripened. After concluding that the claims did not accrue on the date the ordinance was amended, we decide that they accrued upon the issuance of the tickets in October 1999. Therefore, we next dispose of the parties' arguments regarding which statute of limitations applies to the inverse condemnation claims and whether the claims were timely filed. Plaintiffs contend that the 20-year limitations period of section 13--101, which generally applies to adverse possession claims, also applies to their inverse condemnation claims. Section 13--101 provides in relevant part that " o person shall commence an action for the recovery of lands, nor make an entry thereon, unless within 20 years after the right to bring such action or make such entry first accrued, or within 20 years after he, she or those from, by, or under whom he or she claims, have acquired title or possession of the premises." (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/13--101 (West 2002).
The City responds that, because the Eminent Domain Act does not prescribe a limitations period, the "catch-all" five-year limitations period of section 13--205 of the Code applies. Section 13--205 provides in relevant part that "actions on unwritten contracts, expressed or implied, or on awards of arbitration, or to recover damages for an injury done to property, real or personal, or to recover the possession of personal property or damages for the detention or conversion thereof, and all civil actions not otherwise provided for, shall be commenced within 5 years next after the cause of action accrued." (Emphasis added.) 735 ILCS 5/13--205 (West 2002).
We conclude that we need not resolve this issue, because plaintiffs filed their claims for inverse condemnation within a few months of the issuance of the tickets. Plaintiffs' claims were timely filed regardless of whether the 5-or 20-year limitations period applies.
For the preceding reasons, the judgments in both appeal No. 2--03--1392 and appeal No. 2--04--0575 are reversed.
No. 2--03--1392, Reversed.
No. 2--04--0575, Reversed.
McLAREN and BOWMAN, JJ., concur.
|