Quantcast

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Thursday, May 2, 2024

Seventh Circuit: Illinois man's claims against village's land grab can go forward

Federal Court
Closeup of gavel 1600x900

A federal appeals court has resuscitated an Illinois man’s lawsuit against the Village of Ashmore that alleged authorities forced him and his family out of a home located on land the village wanted for a municipal park.

In an Aug. 2 opinion, the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago vacated a district court ruling that held Tracy Luster’s case against the village had to be dismissed on procedural grounds.

Luster had been in the process of purchasing a house in the village based on a contract, and by 2019 he had paid the owner at least 20% of the home’s cost. Luster turned down a village offer to purchase the property, according to the appeals court opinion. Village officials allegedly then convinced the property seller’s family to send the home’s deed to the village without notifying Luster.

The village next called on Luster and his family to vacate the home just before the Christmas holidays.

“According to Luster, he was unable to insure the house because of the ownership dispute,” the opinion says. “The house then burned down while Luster was attempting to (establish) title. The fire destroyed his family’s possessions and left them homeless.”

A lawsuit filed by Luster in 2021 alleged 14th Amendment violations and sought damages for lost property and village officials’ “malicious conduct.” However, the district court eventually concluded that Luster lacked an “adequate post-deprivation remedy” in state law and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice.

The village should have provided notice to Luster of its intentions and offered a “pre-deprivation hearing” before seizing his property interest in the home, the appellate court concluded.

“The village has not disputed that Luster was deprived of his property interest by action under color of law, as the complaint alleges,” the appellate opinion states. “All he needed to allege further was that he did not receive due process of law. … He did that.”

The court sent the case back to the district court for further proceedings in line with the Seventh Circuit decision.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News