Whitlock v. Hilander Foods, Inc.

Hilander Foods, Inc. (Hilander) (defendant) began construction of an addition to a grocery store. The addition included a retaining wall. Hilander obtained permission from the adjoining landowner, Whitlock (plaintiff), to have workers and equipment on Whitlock’s property during the construction. In September, soon after construction began, Whitlock noticed that a portion of the foundation of the retaining wall called footings extended onto his property. Whitlock immediately met with Hilander and attempted to work out a lease to allow the footings to remain. Hilander committed to negotiating a payment for the lease, and Whitlock did not insist on the removal of the footings. Construction continued, but no agreement was reached regarding the lease. Whitlock withdrew permission for the equipment and workers to be on his land in mid-October. A survey completed in November showed that the footings extended 18 inches into Whitlock’s property. Hilander claimed that previously existing footings had also encroached onto Whitlock’s land and that the new footings were in the same place as the old footings. The parties still did not reach an agreement regarding the lease, and Whitlock sued Hilander on March 11, seeking an injunction requiring that the footings be removed from his property. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hilander and denied the injunction. Whitlock appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.