Gaylor v. Village of Ringwood
363 Ill. App. 3d 543, 299 Ill. Dec. 889, 842 N.E.2d 1241 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A valid annexation agreement for a specified term constitutes a contractual waiver of a landowner's statutory right to disconnect the property from a municipality for the duration of that agreement's term.
Facts:
- On December 15, 1997, the Gaylor plaintiffs entered into a 20-year annexation agreement with the Village of Ringwood for their 23.75-acre property.
- The agreement stipulated that it was binding on the parties and their successors for a full term of 20 years.
- On the same day, the property was annexed, and the Village of Ringwood rezoned it from agricultural to light industry and granted other zoning benefits, which the Gaylor plaintiffs accepted.
- The annexation agreement did not contain any provisions regarding the possibility of disconnection.
- The Village of Ringwood performed all of its obligations under the annexation agreement.
- A condition that would trigger the Village's obligation to maintain streets (sale of 50% of the subdivision lots) had not yet occurred.
Procedural Posture:
- On January 10, 2003, plaintiffs Robert W Gaylor and others filed a petition for disconnection in the circuit court of McHenry County against the defendant, the Village of Ringwood.
- The Village of Ringwood filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking to enforce the 20-year term of the annexation agreement.
- The parties stipulated to the facts and filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the trial court.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing the disconnection, and denied the Village's cross-motion.
- The Village of Ringwood, as defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a valid and unexpired annexation agreement with a municipality, which specifies a 20-year term, prevent a landowner from exercising their statutory right to disconnect the property before the agreement's term expires, even if all statutory conditions for disconnection are met?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Malley
Yes, a valid annexation agreement for a specified term prevents a landowner from disconnecting the property before the term expires. The court interpreted the disconnection statute, which requires not only that a petitioner meet the enumerated statutory criteria but also that the land be "entitled to disconnection." This second requirement allows a court to consider affirmative defenses, such as the existence of a binding contract. By entering into the 20-year annexation agreement and accepting its benefits (like favorable rezoning), the plaintiffs contractually waived their statutory right to disconnect for the duration of the agreement. It is a fundamental principle that parties may contract away statutory rights, and the annexation agreement implicitly served as such a waiver.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the statutory right to disconnect property from a municipality is not absolute and can be relinquished through a contractual agreement. It significantly strengthens the enforceability of annexation agreements, providing municipalities with greater certainty in long-term planning and development. The ruling prevents landowners from opportunistically entering into such agreements to gain immediate benefits, like favorable zoning, only to later disconnect to avoid future obligations, such as municipal taxes. This precedent solidifies annexation agreements as binding waivers of the right to disconnect for their specified term.
Unlock the full brief for Gaylor v. Village of Ringwood