Chicago RLTO Trial Judgment against Landlord

In this case the the tenant rented an apartment in Chicago from May 2004 through July 2005. Tenant gave a $450 security deposit and paid $154 per month as rent. CHAC paid the rest of her $846 total rent. After Tenant moved out Landlord refused to return anything. Landlord told the Tenant "I'll never give your deposit back."

Landlord did not respond to written demands by Tenant's attorney for return of the deposit. Tenant finally filed a lawsuit.

At trial the Tenant was awarded damages under RLTO § 080(f) equal to double the $450 security deposit; or $900, because landlord violated most of the provisions under RLTO § 080. Tenant was also awarded return of her $450 deposit.

Tenant also raised a claim for damages equal to one-month's rent under RLTO § 100. That section says:

Before a tenant initially enters into or renews a rental agreement for a dwelling unit, the landlord or any person authorized to enter into a rental agreement on his behalf shall disclose to the tenant in writing:

* * *

(b) Any notice of intent by the City of Chicago or any utility provider to terminate water, gas, electrical or other utility service to the dwelling unit or common areas. The disclosure shall state the type of service to be terminated, the intended date of termination; and whether the termination will affect the dwelling unit, the common areas or both. A landlord shall be under a continuing obligation to provide disclosure of the information described in this subsection (b) throughout a tenancy. If a landlord violates this section, the tenant or prospective tenant shall be entitled to remedies described in Section 5-12-090.

Judgment entered against Chicago Landlord

City of Chicago Department of Water Management Notice of Water Service Termination

Tenant introduced a notice from the City of Chicago Department of Water Management, which said the Department intended to shut off the water at the Premises because the landlord was $819 behind on paying the water bill:

Everyone agreed the water was never actually shut off. Tenant said Landlord still violated RLTO § 100(b) because Landlord didn't give Tenant written disclosure of the intended water shutoff. The court agreed. Landlord argued that the notice posted on the door by the City satisfied RLTO § 100. Still, the court adopted Tenant's argument that RLTO § 100 expressly obligates the landlord to provide its own written disclosure.

The court ruled that Landlord's violation of RLTO § 100(b) entitled Tenant to the remedy found in CRLTO § 090. That section provides in part that:

...the tenant shall recover one month's rent or actual damages, whichever is greater.

Even though Tenant only paid $154 for rent each month, Tenant was awarded damages equal to her entire contract rent of $846. The court relied on the definition of "rent" found in CRLTO § 030, which provides at subsection (f) that:

(f) "Rent" means any consideration, including any payment, bonus, benefits or gratuity, demanded or received by a landlord for or in connection with the use or occupancy of a dwelling unit.

The court agreed that, because the landlord received $846 per month in consideration for Tenant's tenancy, that $846 was Tenant's "one month's rent." Tenant was therefore awarded damages of $846 pursuant to CRLTO § 090.

Tenant recovered a total of $2,196. Tenant's attorney was also awarded $3,996.52 in attorney fees, plus Tenant's court costs of $180 were taxed against Landlord.