Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing for failure to state valid claim plaintiffs-property owners’ action alleging that defendant-Forest Preserve’s passing of ordinance creating forest preserve district for lands that included plaintiffs’ estate violated 5th Amendment’s Takings Clause, since enactment of ordinance did not constitute regulatory taking and did not otherwise effect actual acquisition of subject estate. Moreover, defendant’s purchase and foreclosure on mortgage covering said estate did not constitute unconstitutional taking, since: (1) defendant was merely exercising its contractual right to obtain said estate, as opposed to exercising any governmental prerogative; and (2) terms of mortgage note allowed lender to assign note to anyone without plaintiffs’ consent. Dist. Ct. also did not err in dismissing plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment action against attorney arising out of plaintiffs’ claim that said attorney did not disclose his relationship with Forest Preserve during negotiations with plaintiffs for agreement on deed in lieu of foreclosure. Plaintiffs had failed to allege any plausible damage arising out of attorney’s alleged conduct, where plaintiffs’ had defaulted on mortgage note that was eventually assigned to Forest Preserve.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Civil Court
Fifth Amendment