Find Legal Information

Docket No. 89269-Agenda 17-January 2001.

LARRY GEDDES et al., Appellants, v. MILL CREEK

COUNTRY CLUB, INC., et al., Appellees.

Opinion filed May 24, 2001.

JUSTICE FREEMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiffs, Larry and Choh-Ying Geddes, filed a complaint inthe circuit court of Kane County against defendants, Mill CreekCountry Club, Inc., and American Golf Corporation. Thecomplaint contained actions for intentional trespass and intentionalprivate nuisance based on errant golf balls hit onto their propertyfrom defendants' adjacent golf course. Following a bench trial, thetrial court entered judgment in favor of defendants. The appellatecourt affirmed. No. 2-99-0370 (unpublished order under SupremeCourt Rule 23). We allowed plaintiffs' petition for leave to appeal(177 Ill. 2d R. 315(a)). We now affirm the judgment of theappellate court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs' complaint, as amended, alleged as follows.Plaintiffs own approximately 16 acres of land in Kane County.They reside on the property and use it for their graduallydeveloping agricultural and landscaping business.

Mill Creek Country Club constructed and owns a golf courseknown as Mill Creek Golf Club. The course is leased to AmericanGolf Corporation, which performs daily tasks such as collectinggreens fees and maintaining the course.

Defendants caused and allowed golf balls to continuallyinvade plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs' business is seasonal andcoincides with the golf season."[D]ue to the constant stream ofuninvited, wayward golf balls," plaintiffs have not been able to usesignificant portions of their property. Defendants' intentional actsconstituted both an intentional trespass and a private nuisance.Plaintiffs sought an injunction against defendants, i.e., plaintiffsasked the trial court to "enjoin the Defendants from causing andallowing the continual trespass of golf balls to occur." Plaintiffsalso sought compensatory and punitive damages.

In their answer, defendants denied all material allegations andpled the affirmative defense of estoppel. Defendants alleged thatplaintiffs were estopped from bringing their claims by virtue ofplaintiffs' conduct, memorialized in a prior agreement.

Prior to trial, the court: denied plaintiffs' motion for atemporary restraining order; entered an agreed order dismissingplaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction; denied defendants'motion to dismiss (see 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619 (West 1998));and denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (see 735ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 1998)). The cause proceeded to a benchtrial.

The evidence at trial included the testimony of plaintiffs; KentShodeen, president of Sho-Deen, Inc.; and David Patzelt, vice-president of Sho-Deen. The parties presented the followingpertinent evidence. In 1986, plaintiffs bought 16.5 acres in KaneCounty. The property is rectangular in shape, with the north-southdimension slightly larger than the east-west dimension.

In the same area, Sho-Deen was developing approximately1,450 acres as a planned unit development. A planned unitdevelopment is a land use control device that often combinessubdivision regulations and zoning for the unified development ofa large geographic area. Rather than seeking piecemeal variancesor rezoning, a coordinated plan is drawn up and approved as aspecial use for the entire proposed area. See 9 Real PropertyService: Illinois