A state appeals panel has grounded a suit by Bensenville homeowners against the city of Chicago, which alleged their property rights were violated by noise from nearby O’Hare International Airport, saying homeowners waited too long to sue.
The June 9 ruling was authored by Justice Terrence Lavin, with concurrence from Justice James Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Mary Ellen Coghlan, of the Illinois First District Appellate Court. The ruling was issued as an unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23, which limits its use as precedent.
In October 2015, dozens of Bensenville residents filed suit in Cook County Circuit Court against Chicago City Hall, alleging that after a new runway opened at city-operated O’Hare on Oct. 17, 2013, takeoffs and landings from the runway brought planes over their homes, usually at altitudes of 500 feet or less. The resulting racket ruined their quality of life, constituting an “inverse condemnation,” or illegal taking of their property under the U.S. and Illinois constitutions, plaintiffs claimed.
In December 2018, Associate Judge Thomas Mulroy clipped the suit's wings, finding the statute of limitations gave plaintiffs one year to lodge their action, but they didn't sue until two years after the new runway went into use. Plaintiffs tried to get around this by saying the noise worsened in 2014-15, but Mulroy countered airport statistics did not show any increase or changes in flights since October 2013.
Mulroy also said statements by city representatives pledging to improve the noise situation, were not binding and even if they were, the announcements were no excuse to put off the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs appealed, but again flew into flak.
Before addressing the merits of the appeal, Lavin criticized plaintiffs' attorneys for what Lavin saw as their shoddy briefs, saying they displayed "flagrant disregard" for rules governing the format of briefs.
"This display of utter carelessness from licensed attorneys is simply unacceptable. Nevertheless, we will proceed to consider the merits of their appeal even though these deficiencies would clearly justify striking plaintiffs’ briefs," Lavin said.
Lavin then examined plaintiffs' arguments, but was again critical.
"Plaintiffs have been inconsistent about when the City’s alleged taking occurred, and moreover, they have not identified in their briefs a date on which their claim accrued," Lavin noted.
Lavin added, "Plaintiffs’ supposed evidence that the City’s taking occurred 'after October 1, 2014' was based on unsupported assertions, opinions and self-serving testimony."
The justice also shot down plaintiffs' contention city representatives lulled them into delaying court action, by telling them improvements were in the works.
"Plaintiffs, however, have not identified any specific initiatives that were allegedly promised by those representatives. Furthermore, as set forth above, the record shows that the City had in fact implemented initiatives to reduce the runway’s impact on plaintiffs, namely, sound insulation for their homes," Lavin said.
Plaintiffs have been represented by the Chicago firm of LeonardMeyer.
The city has been represented by city lawyers and Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell, of Denver, Colo.