IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DMSION

JAMES ABEC, et aL,

Plaintiffs,

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREA TER CHICAGO,

Defendant.

BRIAN L. CRO WE, et aL,

Plaintiffs,

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRTCT OF GREA TER CHICAGO,

Defendant.

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF GREA TER CHICA GO,

JOY DONOVAN, KELLY DONOVAN, ROY DON0 VAN, LUIS FLOCCO, VERA MA GGIO, MATTRUH, JAMES M. ABEC, ELOY B URCU GAY WILLIAM TEDFORD, GERTRUDE SNIDER, HELTZER REAL ESTA TE d/b/a THE RA VENS WOOD BOATYARD, MARLIS BEKKER, B U N CRO WE, NOREEN SCANLAN HARTMAN, JOHN KRENGER, SALY KRENGER, MARTIN SURGES, CAROL D. CONNOLLY, STAN BARRISH, ROBERT HANSON, ELIZABETH BLAINE, MARTIN COHEN, DIRK WALES, RAREN PETERSON, CLARENCE TRAPP, EROL ALTA Y, JOSEPH F. TERSCH, ADAM KNOLL, RICHARD WINEBERG, HELENE WNEBERG, SHIRLEE JENSEN, CAROL HARMEL,

4 Case No. 03 CH 21 a 0 (consolidated with Case No. 04 CH 752 and 03 MI 718897)i

0 C m TJ x

JUANITA FUENTES, KARL KNIZE, ) MARLENE BRINRLEY, WOLFGANG ) BUHLER, CHRISTOPHER STEMPER, ) DANIEL KIM, SCOTT MC CA USLAND, ) GA KTN E. CAMPBELL, CARL M. BUSS, ) DONALD EDGINGTON, ALBANY AUTO 1 SALES, MICHAEL DRA GOVICH, JOHN ) FRIEDMAN, PANA TSIS CONSTANDINO, ) WILLIAM L KUGELMA N, JOSHUA ) SHAPIRO, DONALD SHAPIRO, RANDIE L. ) SHAPIRO, RICHARD XI=, PHILIP GIEB, ) BRANDON J. SANTORO, NORMA A. ) VALENCIANO, MARIAN L. PETKO VSEK, ) REYNALDO GOMEZ, ) MICHAEL J. LANNON, ROMAN R KA KRA, ) REYNALDO M. LIBOT, PHILIP K. FANTL, ) MICHAEL N. KEA TING, ARLENE E. ) PETERSON, KAREN HO WARD, NIKOLA 0s ) SPYRIDONOS, MARIA ABARlNG, ERNEST R. ) JONES, PA UL GEBA VT, EDITH GEBA VI, ) JULIA PARISOT, ALEKO K LUBENO V , ) ANDREW MARSZALIK, PA UL A. WLTEN, ) AMY L. LABUDA, JON TOMOS, ILEANA H. ) NESBITT, RA THLEEN J. GIBLIN, ) MARION G. RHINES, JOSEPH C. McLARY, ) ESTER M. GONZALEZ, ANDRES ) HERNANDEZ, JOHN C. WITT, LEONOR 1 G. WITT, IRMINA F. SA QUIN, ) SAMMY HALA WA, RICHARD C. POB GEE, JR.,) BONNIE J. POBGEE, HENRY M. SCHLEICH- ) KORN, SUSAN R. SCHLEICHKORN, SUMMIT ) INDUSTRTES, INC., PAMELA K. LADD, ANNA ) BIELANSK4, PATRICL4 A. BURCL4GA, ELOY ) BURCIAGA and HOWARD W. LANGE, )

1 Defendants. )

METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMA TION DISTRICT OF GREA TER CHICAGO'S FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY, JUDGMENT, DAMAGES, AND OTHER RELIEF

NOW COMES the Plaintiff, METROPOLITAN WATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT OF

GREATER CHICAGO (hereinafter referred to as "District") by and through its Attorney, Frederick M.

Feldman, and for its Fourth Amended Complaint against the above named Defendants, states as

follows:

FA CTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. The District is a body corporate and politic created by Illinois Statute 70 ILCS 260511 et

seq. for the purpose of the treatment and disposal of sewage and prevention of the pollution of the

waterways within its jurisdiction.

2. The District is the owner of the river bed and the banks along the North Branch of the

Chicago River between Belmont and Lawrence Avenues in Chicago, Illinois. The District's Property

is approximately 180 feet wide. It extends approximately 90 feet on each side of the centerline of the

Chicago River up to the top of the banks

3. The District's Property from Montrose Avenue to Lawrence Avenue was conveyed to the

District by document dated July 22, 1903, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A (hereinafter

referred to as the "1 903 Deed").

4. Collectively, the Defendants named herein own residential properties between Montrose

and Lawrence Avenues which abut the Property conveyed to the District by the 1903 Deed.

5. Group A Defendants and their predecessors in interest have constructed docks, decks, sea

walls, mooring posts, patios, terraces, stairs, walkways, garages, fencing, landscaping, and/or other

structures and improvements (hereinafter referred to as "Structures") on the District's Property

between Montrose and Lawrence Avenues in Chicago, Illinois, without title, right or authority under

the 1903 Deed. A listing of the Group A Defendants are set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and

made a part hereof.

6. Group B Defendants have not constructed structures on the District's property. A listing of

the Group B Defendants are set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof.

7. The 1903 Deed contained certain reservations and conditions enumerated, none of which

entitled the Defendants to construct and use the Structures currently maintained on District property.

8. Group A Defendants or their predecessors in interest who constructed structures did not

seek District approval or direction prior to the construction of said Structures.

9. Upon information and belief, none of the Defendants or their predecessors in interest have

filed a verified statement as required by 735 ILCS 5113-1 18. That Section, titled "Forty-Year

Limitation on Claims to Real Estate", provides in part as follows:

'Wo action based upon any claim arising or existing more than 40 years before the commencement of such action shall be maintained in any court to recover any real estate in this State or to recover or establish any interest therein or claim thereto, against the holder of the record title to such real estate when such holder of the record title and his or her grantors immediate or remote are shown by the record to have held chain of title to such real estate for at least 40 years before the action is commenced, unless such claimant, by himself or herself, or by his or her attorney or agent, or if he or she is a minor or under legal disability, by his or her guardian, trustee, either parent, or any other person acting in his or her behalf shall within 40 years after the claim upon which such action is based arises, file in the office of the recorder of the county wherein such real estate is situated, a verified statement definitely describing the real estate involved, the nature and extent of the right or interest claimed, and stating the facts upon which the same is based .

10. The Defendants knew or should have known of the District's ownership and its attempts

to resolve the issues with the Defendants or their predecessors in interest by holding public hearings,

study sessions, participating in community working groups and otherwise exploring solutions without

resorting to litigation.

1 1. All District efforts to resolve these issues have been rejected by the Defendants.

COUNT I - DECLARATORY RELIEF

1-1 1. The District re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1-1 1 as paragraphs 1-1 1 of this Count

12. Section 512-701(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides in part:

The court may, in cases of actual controversy, make binding declaration of rights, having the force of final judgments, whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed, including the determination, at the instance of anyone interested in the controversy, of the construction of any statute, municipal ordinance, or other governmental regulation, or of any deed, will, contract, or other written instrument, and a declaration of the rights of the parties interested.

735 ILCS 512-701 (a).

13. There exists an actual controversy between the District and Defendants regarding the

Defendants' rights to use, maintain, possess and construct improvements on District Property under

the 1903 Deed.

WEREFORE, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greatei- Chicago prays this

Honorable Court to enter an order:

a) Declaring that the Defendants have no rights under tlie 1903 Deed to use, maintain and construct any Structures on the Property.

b) Declaring that the Defendants have no ownership, easement or other rights in the Property.

c) Declaring that all rights of the Defendants enumerated in the 1903 Deed have been timed barred by 735 ILCS 5113-1 18.

d) Declaring that title to said Property be confirmed to be in the District free and clear of any claiin of the Defendants.

e) Declaring that the covenants, conditions, arid restrictions of record constitute a cloud on title and be declared void and cancelled of record.

f) Requiring Defendants to remove all Structures from the Property or to pay all costs of the District in removing same.

g) Awarding the District fees for the Defendants' use and occupancy of the property.

h) That the District has such other relief as this Court deems equitable and just,

COUNT II - INTENTONAL TRESPASS

1-1 1. The District re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 1 1 as for Paragraphs 1-1 1 of this

Count 11.

12. Group A Defendants have constructed, maintained, used, and possessed Structures on the

Property without District approval and without right under the 1903 Deed.

13. Group A Defendants knew to a substantial certainty that the building of these Structures

would result in an unapproved entry onto the District Property.

14. Group A Defendants have continued to use and occupy the District's property without

payment of compensation or fees to the District, and without payment of real estate taxes for the use of

said Property.

15. Group A Defendants foregoing actions and omissions are willful and wanton or, in the

alternative, are in conscious disregard of the District's property rights and as such constitute a trespes.

WEREFORE, the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago seeks

judgment against Group A Defendants in excess of $50,000.00 and any other relief that this Court

deems equitable and proper.

COUNT 111- FORCIBLE ENTRY AND DETAINER

1-1 1. The District realleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1-1 1 as Paragraphs 1-1 1 of this Count

111.

12. This Count is filed under the Illinois Forcible Entry & Detainer Act, 735 ILCS 519-101 et

seq.

13. Group A Defendants continue to maintain and possess Structures on District Property

without title, right, or authority from the District.

14. Group A Defendants continue to maintain and possess Structures on the Property without

rights reserved to them under the 1903 Deed.

15. The District hereby claims possession of its Property.

16. Group A Defendants have continued to use and occupy the Property without payment of

compensation or fees.

FVTIEREFORE, the District seeks an Order of Possession and use and occupancy fees in excess

of $50,000.00 in favor of the District and against Group A Defendants named herein and for such other

relief as this Court deems just and necessary.

COUNT IV- EJECTMENT

1 .-11. The District re-alleges and incorporates Paragraphs 1 - 1 1 as Paragraphs 1 - 1 1 of this Count

IV.

12. This Count is an Ejectment action filed under 735 ILCS 516-101 et. seq.

13. Group A Defendants continue to maintain and possess Structures on District property

without title, right, or authority from the District.

14. Group A Defendants continue to maintain and possess Structures at the Property without

rights reserved to them under the 1903 Deed.

15. The District hereby claims possession of its property unlawfully possessed by the

Defendants.

16. Group A Defendants have continued to use and occupy the Property without payment of

rent, compensation, fees, or taxes.

WHEREFORE, the District prays for a judgment for possession of the Property and for rent,

compensation, and fees for Group A Defendants' use and occupancy of the premises in excess of

$50,000.00 in favor of the District and against Group A Defendants named herein and for such other

relief as this Court deems equitable and just.

Respecthlly submitted,

Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago

Frederick M. Feldman, Its Attorney

Frederick M. FeldmadLynda Holliday Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago 100 East Erie Street Chicago, Illinois 6061 1 (3 12) 75 1-6575 Attorney No. 28 138

Following are the C ~ u r t i € ~ ~ s rulings as written:

WHEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) That the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago is the rightfbl owner of the entire 180-foot strip of land holding fee simple title subject to conditions prescribed in the July 22,1903 conveying document;

2) That the adjoining property owners of the MWRDgPMs property have an easement right of ingress and egress to the wateriiCMs edge until the MWRD is ready to enter and to use the full 180-foot land for the channel;

3) That the easement right of ingress and egress reserved for the adjoining property owners encompasses a dock within the language of paragraph 11, providing for construction of slips or canals, but does not extend to the impermissible permanent structures on the MWRDiVMs property;

4) That the MWRDiETMs proposed fee is not a special assessment for the purpose of widening the channel;

5) That the MWRDi€TMs request to enter and to remove structures on the Disputed Property is deferred until further order of the court upon demonstrated need in providing for a water channel.

I will be happy to provide a copy of the full 20-page ruling to anyone who wants one.

Several other actions have occurred in the last couple of weeks that I need to bring you up to date on.

First, about three weeks ago, the MWRD presented an offer to settle on terms that, in the main, did not meet the minimum requirements of the association.