## Facts

- On March 31, 1969, James E. Schroeder and Floyd A. and Carol A. Schlueter executed a written option giving Schroeder the right to buy about 200 acres of farmland for $70,000.
- The option required notice of election to purchase on or before noon on December 30, 1969.
- The evidence conflicted on whether Schroeder timely attempted to exercise the option; after the deadline, no closing or enforcement efforts occurred.
- In February 1970, the Schlueters wrote to Schroeder stating they considered his rights under the agreement abandoned.
- From 1970 to 1978, the Schlueters made substantial expenditures improving the property and used it as collateral for loans; the property value rose from roughly $70,000 to about $500,000.
- Schroeder lived on part of the property and was aware of the improvements and the owners’ continued treatment of the land as theirs.
- On March 2, 1978, Schroeder sued for specific performance of the option contract.
- The Schlueters asserted laches based on Schroeder’s prolonged inaction and their changed position.

## Issues

1. Whether laches barred specific performance of a real estate option where the claimant delayed nearly nine years in suing after the option period ended and after being notified his rights were treated as abandoned.
2. Whether the owners’ improvements, encumbrances, and the land’s large appreciation during the delay constituted prejudice making specific performance inequitable.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of specific performance.
- The court held Schroeder’s claim was barred by laches because his lengthy, inadequately explained delay prejudiced the Schlueters.
- The court concluded that enforcing the option at the 1969 price after substantial improvements and reliance would be inequitable.

## Legal Principles

- Laches bars equitable relief when a party’s unreasonable delay in asserting a right causes prejudice to the opposing party.
- Specific performance is an extraordinary equitable remedy, not a matter of right, and may be denied when enforcement would be unjust under the parties’ conduct and changed circumstances.
- Prejudice supporting laches may include reliance-based expenditures, financing decisions and encumbrances, and substantial changes in property value during the claimant’s inaction.
- A claimant’s knowledge of the other party’s reliance and continued silence may support a finding of acquiescence and inequity in granting relief.

## Conclusion

The court refused to compel conveyance under a decades-old land option because the buyer waited nearly nine years to sue despite notice that his rights were viewed as abandoned, while the owners materially improved and encumbered the property in reliance on his inaction, making specific performance inequitable under laches.


Schroeder v. Schlueter, 85 Ill. App. 3d 574, 407 N.E.2d 204 (Ill. App. Ct. 1980)