Security Deposit Law                                              DEPOSIT RETURN EXAMPLES

 

RLTO Summary Lease Break Case

     This case was brought by two tenants at two buildings under the same Chicago apartment management company which manages more than a dozen Lincoln Park area buildings with over 1,000 units. 

     The tenants alleged they and other renters got leases with summaries of the Chicago Residential Landlord & Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) that didn't come with (a) the current year's or past two years' security deposit interest rates, or (b) required porch safety language, as required by section 170 of the RLTO.  There is a $100 penalty plus costs and attorney fees for violating section 170.

     In this case, neither tenant rented at a building that actually had a porch or deck, and the landlord did not take security deposits from tenants.  Nevertheless, on October 10, 2008 the trial court denied the landlord's motion to dismiss the case.  The court found no exception in the plain language of section 170 for landlords who don't take deposits or have porches.  Though the landlord had vehemently opposed our termination of the tenant's lease, and threatened collections, the court said they were wrong.

     The porch safety language is required by an amendment to the RLTO enacted in 2003.  This amendment was made in response to a Lincoln Park porch collapse that summer which killed 13 people.   Our position remains that including porch safety language is important, and the law.

     The tenant plaintiff in this case was allowed to have broken their lease legally on short notice under section 170 of the RLTO as well as collect penalty damages for the same violation.

     This case has recently settled on behalf of several thousand renters, without landlord admitting liability.

ALL LANDLORDS ARE PRESUMED NOT-LIABLE UNTIL PROVEN LIABLE

West Diversey   Questionable Chicago Porch

THE COURT:  I am going to deny the motion to dismiss.  Again, certainly the City Council could have drafted exceptions to the requirement of the ordinance for landlords who didn't collect security deposits and units that did not have porches.  It didn't do it.  That leads me to believe that the City Council intended that leases attach this information, whether it was

relevant or not.  And so because the premise for the motion is the ordinance shouldn't apply in this situation, and I can't read that from the face of the ordinance, I'm going to deny the motion to dismiss.  Your answer is due, say, two weeks.

Email Attorney about Renter RightsAbout Attorney SilvermanIllinois Security Deposit Law CasesIllinois Renter InformationDisclaimer - this is not legal advice