Court Finds that Church Sufficiently Stated Claims Under RLUIPA
A recent decision
from an Illinois Appellate Court addressed whether a village may have violated
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) when it sought
to compel a church to repair a historic building. Village
of West Dundee v. The First United
Methodist Church of West Dundee.
According to
the complaint, the property was a historic building owned by the defendant
church which had fallen into disrepair. The church had previously applied for a
permit to demolish the building.
However, the permit was denied by the village’s appearance review
commission, who wanted to see the building restored. The church did not appeal this initial
denial. Several years later, the village
cited the church for numerous property maintenance code violations following an
inspection of the building. When the
church failed to remedy the violations, the village filed suit seeking to
compel the church to repair the building. The church filed a counterclaim alleging
various claims, including violations of RLIUPA. The church also sought an order
authorizing demolition of the building. However, the church’s counterclaim was
dismissed, and the church was ultimately ordered to repair the building.
On appeal, the
court first reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the church’s demolition
counterclaim, explaining that when a municipality seeks one form of relief (either
repair or demolition) under Section 11-31-1(a) of the Illinois Municipal Code, the
building’s owner is entitled to file a counterclaim seeking the alternative form
of relief.
The court then
addressed the church’s claims under RLUIPA.
The church claimed that requiring the building to be repaired instead of
demolished would cost large sums of money, and would potentially ruin the
church financially. The court found that the alleged repair costs could qualify
as a “substantial burden” on the church’s free exercise of its religion in
violation of RLUIPA if ultimately proved at trial. Further, the court rejected
the village’s argument that its property maintenance code was not a “land use
regulation” covered by RLUIPA’s protections. The church had alleged that the
village’s application of its property maintenance code restricted its use of
the land, which the church intended to use as parking for its congregation. The
court found these allegations clearly fell within the purview of RLUIPA, and
that the church’s claims should not have been dismissed.
The court also
found that the church had a viable unequal treatment claim under RLIUPA. The village had previously authorized the
demolition of several other historic structures for commercial uses, in
contrast to its denial of the church’s demolition request. The court found that
these allegations of arbitrary enforcement were sufficient to state an unequal
treatment claim under RLIUPA.
Finally, the
court found that the church had sufficiently alleged an inverse condemnation
claim. The court cited the church’s
allegations that the village had effectively denied it the use of the property,
even if only temporarily, without instituting an eminent domain action. The court held that this was all the church
was required to allege in order to state an inverse condemnation claim against
the village.
Post authored by Kurt Asprooth, Ancel Glink
0 comments:
Post a Comment