The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

In 1975, two groups of developers desiring to have certain tracts of land annexed to Village (D) entered into annexation agreements with D. The owners would pay D the sum of $135 per residential lot and those funds would be held in escrow for the benefit of education and that for five years from the execution of the agreement, the parties would use their best efforts to cause the area in question to be annexed by School District 15. If the annexation efforts were unsuccessful, the escrow funds were to be paid to District 220 at the end of the five-year period. Before the five years expired the parties extended it another 9 years, and if those efforts were again unsuccessful the monies were to be paid to District 220. District 220 (P) sued at the end of the five-year period claiming it was the donee beneficiary under the contract between the owners and D and that the parties had no power to alter the agreement without P's consent. The trial court ruled that the execution of the agreement created a vested right in P and gave P summary judgment. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.