|
Parking lot in Chicago, Illinois
In April 2000, the City of Chicago filed a case to condemn 42,360 square feet or approximately one acre of land at the corner of Wabash and Harrison, one block south of Congress Parkway in Chicago, Illinois. The property was being used as an at-grade asphalt commercial parking lot. The City of Chicago had the property appraised and offered $3,000,000 for the entire property. The City’s proposed use for the property was to construct a City-owned college dormitory.
In 2001, Ryan and Ryan was told that the City had changed its mind and was going to transfer the entire property to the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) which was going to build an elevated train structure through the property to straighten out the “S” curve at Wabash and Harrison Streets. The City of Chicago and the CTA both passed ordinances to conduct a quick-take hearing in early 2002 to immediately acquire title to the property.
Ryan and Ryan challenged the City’s and the CTA’s need to acquire the whole property for this new purpose. In February and March 2002 a trial occurred on this issue in Cook County Circuit Court. At the conclusion of the evidence, the Court indicated to the City and the CTA that the Court agreed with us that it was not necessary to acquire the whole property to construct a new elevated train line through the property.
Ryan and Ryan settled the case by giving the CTA an easement through the property, over an area 48 feet by 250 feet, to construct the elevated train line. The owners received $7,000,000 and were allowed to keep all of their property and park under the elevated train after it was constructed. The owners also will be able to build under and over the train in the future if the owners decide to construct any building on the property.
Vacant land in Lisle, Illinois
The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority (“ISTHA”) condemned 21 acres of vacant land in an office park in Lisle, Illinois. ISTHA testified at the trial to $6 per square foot or $5,500,000. In 1989, we obtained a jury verdict for the owner of $13,810,920. ISTHA appealed the jury verdict to the Appellate Court.
On the day the attorneys for both parties were to argue the appeal in the Appellate Court, both parties agreed to settle the case for $12,763,447 and filed a written motion to dismiss the appeal and settle the pending case in the Appellate Court.
The Appellate Court refused to dismiss the appeal and entered a 22-page decision that threw out the jury verdict and ordered that a new jury trial take place. ISTHA refused to complete the settlement based upon the Appellate Court Order.
On behalf of our client, we filed a petition in the Illinois Supreme Court to enforce the settlement. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled for us and ordered the Appellate Court judges to vacate their 22-page decision and dismiss the appeal. The Illinois Supreme Court further ordered ISTHA to pay the settlement of $12,763,447.
CTA Acquisition Of Three-Story Retail Building
In 2003, the Chicago Transit Authority (“CTA”) filed an action to acquire a three-story retail building adjacent to the Belmont Avenue Station. The CTA offered the owner $1,500,000 for the whole property. In January 2006, Ryan and Ryan obtained $4,250,000 plus relocation and moving expenses for the owner. In addition, per our settlement, the CTA will deed back to the owner one half of the 7,500-square-foot lot upon completion of the construction of the new station.
Waste Transfer and Recycling Center
On April 21, 2003, the City of Chicago filed a complaint to condemn a waste transfer and recycling center on the north side of O’Hare Airport in Des Plaines, Illinois for the O’Hare Modernization Project. The owner had purchased one half of the land for $12.75 per square foot approximately 15 months before the April 2003 valuation date in the case. The City of Chicago had the property appraised and offered the owner $600,000 or $15 per square foot of land for the entire property. Ryan and Ryan believed the property had special value due to its use as a waste transfer and recycling center. Based on that theory, in October 2005, the verdict Ryan and Ryan obtained for the owner was $4,175,000 or almost seven times greater than the City’s initial offer of just compensation.
Asphalt Plant in Des Plaines, Illinois.
In 2004, Ryan and Ryan was retained by the owner of 15-acre asphalt plant to obtain just compensation for the City of Chicago’s acquisition of the property for the expansion of O’Hare Airport. The City of Chicago offered $3,735,000 for the property prior to the filing of the City’s lawsuit to condemn. In 2005, Ryan and Ryan obtained $9,000,000 for the entire property and negotiated a relocation payment of $11,286,035. The City agreed to take the property “as is” and pay for the environmental clean up.
Vacant land in Antioch, Illinois
In 2000, the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (“IDNR”) offered $623,000 for 30.4 acres of vacant land in Antioch, Illinois. Nearly 16 acres of the total 30 acres was buildable, and 14.5 acres was comprised of wetland and floodplain. Ryan and Ryan negotiated a settlement that allowed the owner to keep the buildable 15.9 acres and the IDNR agreed to pay $589,153 to the owner for the reduced taking of the 14.5 acres of wetland and floodplain.
Parking lot in Chicago, Illinois
In 1996, the City of Chicago condemned 3.87 acres or 168,577 square feet on 59th Street just east of Midway Airport that the owner used as a parking lot for Midway Airport. The City offered $1,580,000 for the property. Ryan and Ryan valued the property at $20,000,000, which included the value of the business conducted on the property. Thereafter, the City reduced the taking to .704 acres or 30,680 square feet across the front of the property and paid $1,085,000 for the reduced taking. The owner was able to keep his parking lot business.
Vacant land in Oak Brook, Illinois
In June 1999, the Forest Preserve District filed suit to acquire 66 acres in Oak Brook and Hinsdale, Illinois and offered the owner $4,050,000. Soon thereafter, the Forest Preserve District decided to file a second suit to acquire an additional 52 acres from the same property and offered $11,250,000 for the second taking. Ryan and Ryan convinced the Forest Preserve District to acquire only 51 acres out of the 65.7 acres in the first condemnation suit for $10,000,000 and to abandon all the property in the second suit except for a 50-foot wide driveway for access to the 51 acre purchased property. In 2005, the owner entered into a contract to sell 37 acres that were initially within the property to be acquired in the second lawsuit for $34,000,000.
Vacant land in Chicago, Illinois
In 2005, Ryan and Ryan obtained a judgment order awarding the owner $2,372,581 for vacant property located on East Cermak Road in Chicago, Illinois. The Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority offered the owner $570,000 before the case was filed.
Block 37 in Chicago, Illinois
Ryan and Ryan obtained a jury verdict of $2,500,000 for a 15,000 square foot building located at the northeast corner of Dearborn and Washington. The property owner was offered $1,000,000 by the City of Chicago immediately before the case was filed.
Retail building on State Street in Chicago, Illinois
In 2001, Ryan and Ryan obtained a judgment order awarding the owner $12,500,000 for a retail office building that wrapped around the southwest corner of State Street and Washington Street in Chicago, Illinois. The property owners were offered $5,600,000 by the City of Chicago immediately before the case was filed.
Retail shopping center on South Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois.
In 2004, Ryan and Ryan obtained a judgment order awarding $3,160,000 for a shopping center at the corner of 115th and Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The property owner was offered $1,775,000 by the City of Chicago immediately before the case was filed.
Motel on Lincoln Avenue in Chicago, Illinois
In 2000, Ryan and Ryan obtained a jury verdict awarding $2,610,000 for a motel on Lincoln Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The City of Chicago had initially offered $700,000 for the property.
Vacant building in Chicago, Illinois
In 2000, Ryan and Ryan obtained a judgment order for $4,400,000 for a vacant building on the corner of 9th Street and Michigan Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. The City of Chicago had initially offered $1,246,727.
Vacant land in Palatine, Illinois
In 1995, Ryan and Ryan represented a property owner in Palatine who was offered $10,000,000 for vacant land. Ryan and Ryan obtained a judgment order that awarded $16,570,000 in cash and an interest-bearing note. In addition, the owner was given a 45% interest in the development that was built on the property. The development was sold in 2004 and the owner received $3,990,000 for his interest. The total compensation the owner received from the judgment order was $20,560,000 plus the interest on the note.
* See Attached Results Disclaimer
DISCLAIMER
The materials on this website are provided as a public resource of general information only. The materials are intended to be correct, complete, and up to date, but that result is not promised or guaranteed.
The site is not intended to be a source of advertising, solicitation, or legal advice or the basis of the decision to hire a lawyer. Thus, the information is not an invitation for an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act on or rely on the information provided here for individual advice without seeking the advice of professional counsel. Further, the receipt of email messages sent to Ryan and Ryan or its lawyers through this site will not create an attorney-client relationship, and any such email message will not be treated as confidential.
The owner of this website is a law firm licensed to practice only in Illinois. Furthermore, the owner of this does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing any portion of this website in any state where the website fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state. In some states, the material on this site constitutes advertising or promotional material.
Further, Ryan and Ryan wishes to inform readers that by providing information on this website about matters handled in the firm, Ryan and Ryan and its members are not suggesting that the results obtained in these matters can be achieved in other legal matters.
Michael Ryan is responsible for the content of this website.
|
