|
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT VG Marina Mgmt. Corp. v. Wiener (2007) Lawrence v Regent Realty (2001)
ILLINOIS COURTS OF APPEAL Willis v. NAICO Real Estate (2008) VG Marina Mgmt. Corp. v. Wiener (2007, 2008) Turner v. 1212 S. Mich. P'ship (2005) Sternic v. Hunter Properties (2003) Namur v. The Habitat Company (1998) American National Bank v. Powell (1997) Plambeck v.Greystone Management (1996) Spiegel v. Hollywood Towers Cond. Assoc. (1996) Solomon v. American Nat'l Bank and Trust Co. (1993)
|
The Supreme Court gave this tenant a second chance and sent his case back to the Court of Appeals for supplemental briefing. The issue: Does a tenant's failure to pay rent, an obligation under § 130(a), entitle the landlord to the landlord's attorney fees when the landlord sues the tenant for rent?
The answer? Not if the landlord doesn't plead in their complaint that they are suing under the RLTO - and admits they aren't even claiming attorney fees under the RLTO. So, in this case, the landlord's $22,000+ attorney fees taxed against the tenant under the appellate court's first decision are reversed by the Appellate Court . Still, the Appellate Court made clear it still thinks landlords can sue for rent under section 030 of the RLTO and collect attorney fees under section 180, as long as the landlords say that's what they are doing.
The Supreme Court said: VG Marina Mgmt. Corp. v. Wiener, 224 Ill. 2d 594 (2007)
"In the exercise of this Court's supervisory authority, the Appellate Court, Second District, is directed to vacate its judgment in VG Marina Management Corporation v. Wiener, 371 Ill. App. 3d 201, (2007). The appellate court is directed to order supplemental briefing on the applicability of section 5-12-130(a) of Chicago's Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, as suggested by the dissenting justice"
The Second District Court of Appeals had previously ruled that:
VG Marina Mgmt. Corp. v. Wiener, 371 Ill. App. 3d 201, 206 (2nd Dist. 2007)
On remand, the Second District Court of Appeals reversed its affirmation of the trial court's award of attorney fees to the landlord. Nothing else changed. The Court of Appeals didn't change its mind, but instead relied on the landlord's change in position at re-argument, whereby the landlord's attorney claimed the RLTO didn't even apply to the rental. Landlord let its $22,000+ attorney fee slip through its fingers. |
||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||