The City of Chicago filed a lawsuit against the unknown
heirs of the deceased owner of a single-family home claiming the property had been neglected
and was an unsafe public nuisance. In
City of Chicago v. Dzendrowski, an Illinois
Appellate Court rejected claims by family members of the deceased owner that they were denied due process because they were not properly notified of the City’s lawsuit.

After the City discovered numerous violations of the City Code including warped flooring, missing
electrical and plumbing fixtures, and damage to the home’s exterior from
decaying trees, it searched the property’s title records to attempt to locate the heirs of the deceased owner. The City found eight
possible relatives, including the two individuals involved in this lawsuit, and for over a year, the City made numerous unsuccessful attempts to
serve the individuals. Eventually, it sought permission from the court to serve
notice in a newspaper.  

At the first court hearing on the City’s lawsuit, the court appointed a limited receiver to take all
reasonable steps to remove the nuisances. After the hearing, two relatives of
the deceased owner filed motions and argued they were not
properly notified of the lawsuit. 
The circuit court denied the motions, allowed the limited
receiver to remedy the issues with the property, and the City voluntarily
dismissed the case. 

The two relatives appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court, arguing, among other things, that their procedural due
process rights were violated when the City voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit
after the court denied the relative’s motions but before they could file a
counterclaim or otherwise defend against the merits of the lawsuit. The court rejected their claims, holding that the relatives had a 10-12 month period where they could have
asserted a counterclaim or defense, but chose not to do so. The court said this
was a reasonable time to defend against the allegations and held that their due
process rights were not violated by the court’s dismissal of the case.  

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink