Chicago Business Litigation Lawyer Blog

DiTommaso-Lubin represents clients all over the Chicago-land area, and because Chicago is a growing metropolis, land comes at a premium. This means that there is constant property development going on all over our fair city, and with that development comes unique legal problems. Water Tower Realty Company v. Fordham is a case that was decided in the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division that addresses some of the problems that arise when companies perform construction in close proximity to neighboring businesses.

In Water Tower Realty Company v. Fordham, Defendant Fordham constructed a building on a parcel of land in Chicago, and prior to its construction, Defendant agreed to indemnify Plaintiff Water Tower for losses suffered due to the erection of the edifice. Five years after the building was finished, Plaintiff filed suit alleging that during construction Defendant had “so used its property as to make it impossible to lease” an adjacent property. Plaintiff claimed that it had lost over $75,000 in rental business as a result and that Defendant had refused to indemnify Plaintiff for this loss. Plaintiff filed for a dismissal of the action, and the trial court dismissed the claims because they were barred by the applicable statute of limitations as set forth in 735 ILCS 2-619(a)(5). Defendant then appealed the trial court's dismissal.

The Appellate Court analyzed whether the trial court was correct in applying the four year statutory period or whether a ten year period was appropriate. The Court found that the nature of the injury was determinative in making such a decision, with the four year term applying if the injury was due to a construction-related activity, and the ten year term applying if the harm was caused by a breach of contract. In reversing the lower court's dismissal, the Appellate Court concluded that the appropriate statute of limitations was the ten year term because the Plaintiff's injury was caused by Defendant's failure to honor the indemnity agreement. The Court went on to hold that the agreement's indemnity provisions applied to both first party and third party claims, and that it contained no language that could hold Defendant's agents personally liable for Plaintiff's damages.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Applies 10 Year Statute of Limitations in Construction Indemnity Case" »

Earlier this year, the Appellate Court of Illinois handed down an opinion that has implications for businesses with leased premises. Our Aurora business attorneys found Bright Horizons Children's Centers LLC v. Riverway Midwest LLC, which is a dispute regarding a commercial lease that was initially filed in Cook County.

Bright Horizons is a company that operates day care facilities across the state of Illinois. The company entered into a ten year commercial lease agreement with Riverway for a property in Rosemont, Illinois. The lease agreement contained restrictive language allowed for the building to only be used for a child-care center. The agreement also contained a relocation provision which gave Riverway the right to relocate Bright Horizons, upon 180 day written notice, to a different property of equal quantity and quality to the original premises. The dispute between these two parties arose when Riverway sought to invoke the relocation clause less than one year into the lease.

Riverway attempted to exercise the relocation provision on three occasions. The first attempt was unsuccessful because the alternative premises allegedly presented to Bright Horizons did not meet the requirements of the lease agreement. Bright Horizons accepted the second space offered by Riverway, but Riverway withdrew their notice before renovating the new facilities to meet the requirements of the lease. Riverway then proposed a third relocation premises, and allegedly informed Bright Horizons that if they were unable to agree on an alternative space, Riverway would terminate the lease in 180 days from the date of the notice. This third property allegedly ran afoul of state licensing standards for child care facilities and the Illinois Administrative Code. Bright Horizons informed Riverway that the third property did not meet Illinois' licensing standards and could not be legally used as a child care facility. In response, Riverway informed Bright Horizons that they were in default of the lease and that Bright Horizons could cure their default by relocating to the third alternative premises.

Bright Horizons then filed for declaratory judgment requesting that the trial court find: 1) that they were not in breach of the lease, 2) that Riverway could not terminate the lease, and 3) that Riverway had failed to properly exercise the relocation clause of the lease agreement. Bright Horizons then filed for summary judgment on these issues, which was granted by the trial court. Riverway then appealed the trial court's ruling. On appeal the Appellate Court agreed with the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Bright Horizons. In so ruling, the Court held that the lease allowed for one permitted use of the premises and required that Bright Horizons comply with all laws and regulations, including the state child-care licensing standards. The Court held that Bright Horizons' relocation to the proffered space would violate state regulations and cause Bright Horizons to be in breach of the lease due to their inability to operate a child-care. As such, the Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Bright Horizons.

Continue reading "llinois Appellate Court Rules that a Relocation Provision in a Commercial Lease Must Abide by State Regulations" »

The purchase of land is a complex and multi-layered process that presents many opportunities for not only misunderstandings and mistakes, but also fraud and misrepresentations. DiTommaso-Lubin has many attorneys who focus on handling consumer fraud cases, so we are always tracking developments in that field of the law. Chultem v. Ticor Title Insurance is a recent Illinois appellate decision concerning title insurance agent kickbacks in the sale of real properties here in Illinois.

Chultem v. Ticor Title Insurance began as two separate class-actions that were consolidated into one case. In both cases, however, Plaintiffs purchased a parcel of land that also included the purchase of a title insurance policy from Defendants. Plaintiffs were sold the title insurance by an attorney agent who also represented one or more of the parties in the real estate transactions in question. Defendants, as title insurance companies, paid these lawyer agents an additional sum “over and above the attorney fees” paid to them by their clients (who were parties to the transaction).

Plaintiffs filed suit because Defendants paid the attorney agents based upon “the amount of insurance premiums generated from the referred clients” instead of for the services that the lawyers actually performed in their role as title insurance agents. In doing so, Plaintiffs alleged that in doing so, Defendants violated the Title Insurance Act and the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs sought to certify a class, but the lower court denied certification because it would not be possible to determine across the board liability. Plaintiffs then filed an appeal.

On appeal, the Court addressed Defendants' argument that a transaction-by-transaction analysis would be required in order to determine liability, and as such common issues could not predominate as required for class certification. The Court did not find Defendants' arguments persuasive, however, because the agreement between the attorney agents and Defendants provided for a pro forma commitment. The Court went on to reason that if Plaintiffs are able to show that the agreements were pro forma and that the agents received full compensation as insurance agents, then liability for all claims could be established. Therefore the Court reversed the lower court ruling and remanded the case consistent with the finding that the Plaintiffs had satisfied the predominance requirement for class-certification.

Continue reading "Appellate Court Certifies Class-Action in Title Insurance and Consumer Fraud Act Case" »

A recent ruling clarifying how Illinois state law applies to city ordinances caught the attention of our Chicago consumer protection attorneys. In Landis et al v. Marc Realty et al, Ill. Sup. Co. No. 105568 (May 21, 2009), tenants Ana and Ken Landis signed a lease for a Chicago apartment, starting June 1, 2001. They paid a security deposit of $8,400. However, they found a persistent leak in the apartment that the defendants, Marc Realty LLC and Elliott Weiner, were not able to fix. They came to a mutual agreement to vacate in exchange for being released from the lease and left in November of 2001. In April of 2006, they filed suit under Chicago’s Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance, alleging that the defendants never paid back their security deposit.

Under the RLTO, landlords must repay security deposits, or the balance of such deposits, within 45 days of the date tenants move out or within seven days after the tenant gives notice. If they hold on to the deposits for more than six months, they must pay interest that accrues from the day the rental term began. If they fail to make either payment, tenants are entitled to sue for twice the security deposit plus interest. Neither party in this case disputed this. Instead, Marc Realty moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely under the two-year statute of limitations for a statutory penalty in Illinois. The plaintiffs argued that the RLTO did not provide a statutory penalty, but instead was governed by the five-year miscellaneous statute of limitations or the ten-year statute of limitations applied to contracts. The trial and appellate courts sided with defendants, and plaintiffs appealed.

The majority started by noting that the case rests on the proper interpretation of the phrase “statutory penalty.” It first took up the question of whether a city ordinance qualifies as a statute, which the plaintiffs argued that it did not. The appeals courts are split on this question, the Supreme Court wrote, and prior Supreme Court cases don’t quite apply. The court assumed that the Legislature intended the word “statutory” to take its ordinary dictionary definition, but found that dictionaries are also split on the issue. Applying the general principle that courts should give statutes their broadest possible meaning, the Supreme Court found that the Legislature intended “statutory” to encompass municipal ordinances as well as state law. It noted that this is most fair because it gives all claims for statutory penalties in Illinois the same statute of limitations.

The court next disposed of the plaintiffs’ arguments about the word “penalty.” Under McDonald’s Corp. v. Levine, 108 Ill. App. 3d 732 (1982), statutory penalties must impose automatic liability for violation; set forth a predetermined amount of damages; and impose damages without regard to actual damages. The plaintiffs concede that the RLTO meets the first test, but said the damages are not predetermined because a dollar amount isn’t specified. It doesn’t need to, the court wrote; the formula provided by the statute is sufficient to be counted as “predetermined.” It also dismissed the plaintiffs’ argument that they are seeking actual damages, noting that other areas of the RLTO specify actual damages, but this one does not. The ordinance also says nothing about the contractual obligations between landlords and tenants, the court said, despite plaintiffs’ argument that they were seeking to enforce contractual rights. Thus, the RLTO does impose a “statutory penalty” -- and the lower courts’ judgments were affirmed.

In a dissent, Justices Kilbride and Karmeier disagreed with the majority on the question of whether the Legislature intended to include municipal ordinances in the definition of “statutory penalty.” Saying that courts must interpret laws according to the intent of drafters at the time, the justices wrote that “statutory” took only the state-law meaning in 1874, when the law was written. Furthermore, several Illinois Supreme Court precedents show that this interpretation was in use by courts of the time as well: “This court’s precedent could not be more clear.” And the result in this case contradicts a more recent ruling in Clare v. Bell, 378 Ill. 128 (1941), they wrote, which the majority mentioned but failed to adequately distinguish, leaving an inconsistent ruling. The justices also dissented from the majority’s denial of a rehearing.

Continue reading "Penalty Under Landlord Tenant Ordinance Is Statutory, Illinois Supreme Court Finds" »

Our Illinois business and commercial emergency attorneys were interested to read an article about a lawsuit suggesting corporate “dirty tricks” by the parent company of the Jewel-Osco chain of grocery stores. Rubloff Development Group Inc., a commercial real estate developer, made that accusation in a lawsuit filed in Chicago federal court in June. According to the Chicago Tribune’s Chicago Breaking Business blog, Rubloff believes Jewel-Osco hired Saint Consulting, a Massachusetts company, in secret to “harass and interfere” with a shopping center Rubloff was trying to develop in Munedelin, Ill., with a Wal-Mart as its “anchor.” Rubloff and other developers are seeking a declaratory judgment that documents in its possession do not contain confidential trade secrets belonging to Saint, as Saint has alleged.

According to Rubloff’s complaint (PDF), file in late June, Rubloff has documents it believes show that Jewel-Osco “secretly retained” Saint to delay or stop development of shopping centers slated to contain Wal-Mart stores, which might compete with Jewel-Osco. The complaint alleges that Saint is responsible for “false statements and sham litigation” against several of the plaintiffs’ developments, particularly the one in Mundelin. Sometimes, this was enough to make the Wal-Mart pull out, causing tens of millions of dollars in costs to the developers, it says. Rubloff claims it sent SuperValu a letter in early May with these accusations. Although that letter did not name Saint and was not sent to Saint, the complaint said, Saint responded a week later with a threat to sue Rubloff for “wrongful possession of ... confidential, proprietary business information.”

Rubloff and its co-plaintiffs responded with this lawsuit. In it, they ask the court for a declaratory judgment that the information at issue is not privileged, confidential or trade secrets. They also ask the court to enjoin the defendants from spoiling any evidence, something they claim the defendants do routinely, and request damages for any evidence already spoiled. If permitted to submit the controversial information to the court under seal, they say they can raise claims of racketeering, tortious interference with business opportunities, fraud, antitrust claims and more, with tens of millions in potential damages.

As Chicago business emergency lawyers, we believe a declaratory judgment is a smart way for Rubloff and the other plaintiffs to strike first and avoid potentially damaging litigation in Massachusetts. A declaratory judgment is a court order declaring the legal relationships and obligations between the parties. In this case, it is likely to be a judgment declaring whether the documents at issue are trade secrets that deserve protection under Illinois law. If Saint is bluffing about this, filing for a declaratory judgment allows Rubloff to establish that fact without fighting a frivolous lawsuit, and in its own home court rather than halfway across the United States. A declaratory judgment in Rubloff’s favor would also allow the developer to go forward with its own business lawsuit against Saint and Jewel-Osco.

Continue reading "Developer’s Lawsuit Accuses Grocery Chain of Using ‘Dirty Tricks’ to Keep Wal-Mart Out of Town" »

Our Chicago consumer fraud attorneys were pleased to see a recent ruling affirming real estate buyers’ right to relief, and punitive damages, after fraud by the builder. Linhart v. Bridgeview Creek Development Inc., No. 1-07-2712, (Ill. 1st May 20, 2009). Plaintiffs Ken Linhart, Beverly Linhart, Amy Gable, Jane Longo, Lloyd Clark and Diane Latta bought four townhomes in the Bridgeview subdivision in Palatine, Ill. in 1997 and 1998. All four units were part of the same building. During construction of that building, a town inspector noted that the foundation was sinking. This problem was not obvious during the pre-purchase walk-throughs, but later allegedly caused the building to sink seven to ten inches, causing cracks in the walls, slanted floors, floors and ceilings pulling apart, sticking doors and windows and flooding.

In 2001, the plaintiffs sued the developer, builder and its owner over these defects, claiming breach of implied warrant of habitability; fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment; and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. A jury trial returned a verdict of $1.38 million in compensatory damages for all plaintiffs, plus punitive damages of $5,000 plus attorney fees for each plaintiff. Defendants appealed, saying the jury’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence; the jury was improperly instructed; the six plaintiffs should have had six separate verdicts rather than one; and punitive damages were improper.

The First District started with the meatiest issue: whether the verdict itself was not supported by the evidence. On the fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims, the defendants argued that plaintiffs should have shown that they relied on defendants’ misrepresentations when they purchased the townhouses. As to the four plaintiffs claiming common-law fraud, the court wrote, there was in fact ample evidence that they did so. The evidence in the record shows that defendants lied about the cause of cracks in the walls and the foundation, including the statement that “it’s not like the house is going to sink or anything.” Thanks to the village inspector’s report, defendants knew this was not true. Thus, the common-law fraud verdict was valid, and because common-law fraud is enough to support a Consumer Fraud Act claim, both verdicts were affirmed. The court also upheld the amount of the damages, saying qualified expert testimony supported it.

The court next examined the defendants’ argument that plaintiffs should have presented evidence for their own claims separately and received separate verdicts. It’s true that Illinois law requires separate verdicts when separate recoveries are sought, the First District wrote, but on the relevant count -- breach of implied warranty of habitability -- all of the plaintiffs presented their case as a single plaintiff, asking for repairs to the building as a whole. Thus, the ruling was affirmed. The First also rejected defendants’ arguments that the jury instructions were deficient in several ways. It did find an error in the jury instructions for breach of implied warranty of habitability, but said this error was harmless.

Last, the First District considered the issue of whether punitive damages were proper even though the plaintiffs never explicitly requested them. Punitive damages are available under the Consumer Fraud Act, the court noted, and plaintiffs asked for any relief provided by that law. Furthermore, evidence at trial showed that the defendants acted fraudulently or maliciously, as required for punitive damages, because they failed to correct a defect they knew about and intentionally misrepresented that defect to the buyers. And the trial court did not abuse its discretion, the appeals court said, because it considered both sides’ arguments and the defendants’ financial position. Thus, it upheld the punitive damages award and affirmed all of the trial court’s rulings.

Continue reading "First District Upholds Punitive Damages Award in Defective Townhouse Case" »

In a hard-fought Illinois consumer fraud lawsuit over deception by a condominium developer, the Second District Court of Appeal has upheld an award involving both nominal damages and punitive damages. In Kirkpatrick v. Strosberg, Nos. 2-06-0724 and 2-06-0731 (Ill. 2nd Aug. 8, 2008), four plaintiffs, led by John Kirkpatrick, sued a real estate developer over misrepresentations about the square footage and ceiling height of the luxury condominiums they purchased in Glen Ellyn, Ill.

Defendant Morningside Development Group is general partner of defendant Glen Astor Condominium Investors LP, a residential real estate developer. Defendant David Strosberg is Morningside’s president. Glen Astor entered into contracts with the plaintiffs for their purchase of luxury condos on the top floor of a development. Before purchasing the condos, the plaintiffs allege, they read sales materials promising nine-foot ceilings and specific amounts of square footage in the units. In three cases, floor plans specifying square footage were incorporated into their contracts. A rider to the contracts specified that dimensions are approximate and subject to adjustments due to the location of building components. During construction, the builder had to lower the ceilings by six inches because of the size of roof components. After buying the condos, the plaintiffs realized that both the square footage and the ceiling heights were smaller than promised.

At trial for the subsequent lawsuit, the court determined that the difference in square footage resulted from differences between how LeNoble and the plaintiffs’ own appraiser measured the square footage, but that LeNoble’s smaller measurements were appropriate and proper. Thus, the court struck down the square footage claims. Finally, it found for the plaintiffs on the breach of contract claims regarding the lowered ceiling. It found that there were actual damages, but that the plaintiffs’ expert appraiser had not given adequate information about damages. The breach of contract took place in 1997, the court said, but Philips gave a diminished value as of 2004 that was “nothing more than a guess without proper basis.” Thus, the court awarded nominal damages of $100 each on the breach of contract and Consumer Fraud Act claims regarding the ceilings. It also awarded $300,000 in punitive damages and $83,000 in attorney fees.

Both the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed, raising a total of 13 issues. The appeals court started with the square footage claims; the plaintiffs argued that the trial court was wrong to find against their common-law fraud and Consumer Fraud Act claims. The trial court heard conflicting evidence on how square footage was measured, and the appeals court saw no reason to question the trial court’s judgment in favor of LeNoble’s method. Thus, there was no false statement or deceptive act. Further, because of the contract rider specifying that dimensions were approximate, there was no breach of contract. Thus, it upheld the trial court’s decision on square footage.

The Second next considered the issue of damages for the lowered ceilings. The plaintiffs argued that the trial court should have used Phillips’ measurement of diminished value. In this case, the appeals court wrote, damages should be the difference between the actual sales price and the fair market value of the properties on the day of the breach. Philips offered an estimation of fair market value seven years after the breach, the court wrote, which the trial court found was speculative. This was not unreasonable or against the evidence, the appeals court wrote.

Meanwhile, the defendants argued that the trial court’s finding was wrong because the contracts didn’t specify a ceiling height. Nonetheless, the appeals court wrote, they used deceptive marketing materials to induce the plaintiffs to sign contracts, so the ruling on the breach of contract and Consumer Fraud Act claims stands. The defendants also argued that the contract rider barred the breach of contract claim as to the ceilings, as well as the square footage. The trial court found that this was an unreasonable alteration and not covered by the rider, the appeals court said, and it had no reason to think this was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The defendants next argued that nominal damages were incorrect because the plaintiffs did not prove actual damages, an argument the Second District pointed out was expressly refuted by the trial court’s finding that damages had been proven. They also argued that punitive damages were incorrectly awarded because they were accompanied only by nominal damages. The appeals court looked to caselaw saying punitive damages supported by nominal damages are only appropriate under the Consumer Fraud Act when the defendant’s conduct is intentional. That was clearly established at trial, the court wrote, so the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It also ruled that the punitive damages award was not so grossly excessive as to be unconstitutional, noting that it passes all three tests set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996).

Finally, the court considered the defendants’ challenge to both the rewarding and amount of attorney fees. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs were not entitled to the fees because they were not the “prevailing party,” but the appeals court disagreed, noting that plaintiffs were awarded damages. Furthermore, the trial court found that the defendants repeatedly acted in bad faith. And in order to overturn the amount of attorney fees, the appeals court wrote, it would have to find that the trial court did not use sufficient evidence to determine the fees. It saw no reason to so find, so it upheld the attorney fees decision along with all of the trial court’s other decisions.

The Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., law firm of DiTommaso-Lubin concentrates in protecting the legal rights of consumers, real-estate, home and condomimium purchasers who have been misled or taken advantage of in financial and real-estate transactions. In addition to Chicago consumer fraud lawsuits over real estate contracts, our Illinois consumer fraud litigation attorneys handle lawsuits over real-estate fraud, billing fraud, fraud by auto dealers, deceptive advertising and many other common consumer pitfalls. Based in Illinois, our consumer fraud and real-estate and condomium fraud and breach of contract trial lawyers represent clients involving consumer frauds and real-estate disputes in the Chicago area including Wheaton, Naperville, Aurora, Rockford and Waikegan and in different parts of the United States. To set up a free, confidential consultation on your case, please contact us online or call us toll-free at 1-877-990-4990.

As Naperville, Oak Brook, Wheaton, and Chicago business trial lawyers with substantial experience in shopping center claims, we were interested to see a recent decision by the First District Court of Appeal on the obligations of people who guarantee a lease. A change in the lease and a directed verdict at trial do not relieve a couple of their liability as guarantors of a commercial lease, the court has ruled. In Chicago Exhibitors Corporation v. Jeepers! Of Illinois and Swento, 1-06-3313 (Aug. 30, 2007), the court ruled that a guaranty agreement written to survive changes to the lease is enforceable even if the lease is assigned to a new tenant who changes it without the guarantor's approval.

Harvey and Cherry Swento owned a business that leased space from a predecessor landlord to Chicago Exhibitors Corporation (CEC). To sweeten that lease, the Swentos in 1991 personally guaranteed their lease payments and all of their other obligations as tenants, with a clause specifying that the guaranty would survive changes to or assignment of the lease. In 1997, they sold their business to Jeepers! of Illinois, Inc. and executed an agreement in which Jeepers! indemnified them from losses stemming from their personal guaranty. Jeepers! then failed to pay its rent, causing CEC to demand an amendment to the lease that reaffirmed the Swentos' personal guaranty. CEC declined to recognize the transfer of lease obligations from the Swentos' company to Jeepers! until rent was paid in full and Jeepers! executed its own guaranty.

Jeepers! never did take on the guaranty, but it failed to pay its rent again several times. In an effort to avoid eviction, it agreed to several changes to the lease in January of 2001. The Swentos did not sign this amendment, even though it called for the ratification of all guarantors. When CEC eventually sued Jeepers! for unpaid rent and repairs, it included the Swentos as guarantors. In the trial, the Swentos asserted that the January 2001 amendment was a material change that discharged them from their obligations as guarantors; CEC successfully moved in limine for a ruling that it was not. The parties then agreed to move straight to the damages phase of the trial, so the judge granted a directed verdict on liability. The Swentos were eventually found liable for unpaid rent and damages as well as attorney fees. They appealed the in limine motion, the directed verdict and the award of attorney fees.

In its decision, the appeals court found that the January amendment to the lease was not material enough to release the Swentos from their obligations. In Illinois, changes to a contract must make the guarantor's obligations materially different from what they originally signed, including a substantial increase in risk. None of the changes in the amendment changed the Swentos' financial obligations, the court said, so it was not a material enough change to release them from their guaranty. Nor was the Swentos' lack of control over Jeepers! enough to constitute an increase in risk, especially since their original guaranty was written to endure despite changes in the lease.

The Swentos also argued that a directed verdict denying them a chance to defend themselves was inappropriate because they never signed the January 2001 amendment, which they argued superseded the lease and thus waived CEC's rights against them. The court found those arguments unconvincing, but more importantly, pointed out that they are waived on appeal because the Swentos failed to raise them at trial. Finally, the appeals court rejected the Swentos' argument that they shouldn't be held responsible for an agreement they didn't sign, again saying that the January 2001 changes to the lease were not material enough to release them from their obligations. Thus, the trial court's decision was unanimously affirmed.

With offices in Chicago and Oak Brook, Ill., DiTommaso-Lubin handles commercial real estate litigation of all kinds, including a variety of contractual disputes and shopping center tenant matters. If you have a legal problem regarding a shopping center or another real estate matter, we would like to help. To set up a confidential consultation with our Chicago business and real-estate trial attorneys, please contact our Oak Brook business and real-estate trial attorneys today.

As Chicago business trial attorneys with substantial experience in disputes involving shopping centers, our firm was interested to see a recent Fourth District Court of Appeal decision allowing a shopping center to go through with its lease despite a restrictive covenant in a land sale by its predecessor. In Regency Commercial Associates v. Lopax, 4-06-0332 (May 4, 2007), the appeals court upheld the trial court's ruling that the business at issue was not covered by the covenant, and that starting the lease while the case was still pending did not bar it from requesting a declaratory judgment.

Regency Commercial Associates, LLC and Lopax, Inc. are companies that own neighboring parcels of land in Savoy, Ill. The prior owner of Regency's land, Arbours Development Limited Partnership, sold Lopax its land, which Lopax then leased to a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchisee. The sales contract between Lopax and Arbours restricted Arbours from allowing another "fast-food restaurant ... or restaurant facility whose principal food product is chicken[.]" It also lists the types of businesses allowed, which include "casual dining." Regency later purchased Arbours' rights under the contract.

When Regency wanted to lease to a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant, it negotiated with Lopax, arguing that the restaurant is "casual dining" and not fast food. Lopax disagreed, saying it believed the contract restricts any restaurant that primarily serves chicken. Regency filed for declaratory judgment, asking the court to find that Buffalo Wild Wings is not fast food and that the covenant restricts only fast-food restaurants that primarily sell chicken. Finding that there was a genuine issue of material fact to try, the court denied Lopax's motion to dismiss.

During this phase, Lopax discovered that Buffalo Wild Wings franchisee had already signed a lease with Regency, contingent on the lawsuit's success, before Regency's filing. Lopax then filed for summary judgment based on nonliability for past conduct -- the legal theory that a plaintiff may not seek declaratory judgment after already taking a contract-breaching action. Regency contended that because the lease didn't take effect until the case was over, there was no lease. Lopax also moved to compel discovery of the lease. The court denied both that and the summary judgment motion. Lopax appealed both denials, as well as the denial of its motion to dismiss.

In its analysis, the Fourth District noted that the language of the restrictive covenant was ambiguous as to whether all chicken restaurants are banned, or just fast food restaurants. Using documents that illuminated the parties' reasoning at the time the contract was written, it decided that the covenant restricted only fast-food restaurants primarily serving chicken. On the issue of nonliability for past conduct, the appeals court pointed out that the lease is not effective until this case is over and none of the actions adverse to Lopax -- opening the buffalo wings restaurant -- have taken place, so Regency is not seeking to avoid liability for past conduct. Finally, the court upheld the trial court's decision that the lease was irrelevant and therefore should not be discoverable. It is worth noting that Justice Cook dissented from this decision.

As Chicago, Wheaton, Oak Brook and Naperville business trial lawyers with substantial experience with shopping center tenants disputes and shopping center tenants' rights issues, we welcome clarifications to real estate contract law, especially on restrictive covenants. If you are involved in a similar dispute over a shopping center or other commercial real estate and you would like to speak with us about your options, please contact DiTommaso-Lubin for a confidential consultation.

As Chicago class action attorneys with a focus on consumer rights and consumer protection law, we know that renters in Chicago are fortunate to be protected by a law requiring landlords to pay interest on the renters' own security deposits once a year, as long as the tenant stays for more than six months. Section 080 of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (PDF) also specifies that landlords must return security deposits, minus unpaid rent or reasonable costs of repairs, within 45 days of the tenant's departure. Unlike with the corresponding state law, this is true regardless of the number of units the landlord owns. If a landlord fails to comply, the tenant has the right to sue for twice the amount of the deposit, plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The ordinance also applies even if the landlord did not willfully (that is, intentionally) withhold the payment. That provision was established by the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, 307 Ill.App.3d 155, 717 N.E.2d 443, 240 Ill.Dec. 350 (1999). In that case, Aurelia Lawrence sued her landlord for withholding interest on a pet deposit. At trial, the court decided that a pet deposit is a security deposit for the purposes of the law (rather than a fee or charge). But because the landlord didn't willfully refuse to pay interest on that pet deposit, it declined to impose the penalty of twice the deposit plus interest and attorney fees. Lawrence moved for a new trial, which was denied, and appealed to the First District.

In its analysis, the appeals court noted that it did not need to decide whether the landlord actually did willfully fail to pay; what mattered was whether the ordinance required willfulness in the first place. In order to require willfulness, the court wrote, a law must be penal (intended to punish) rather than remedial (intended to make the victim whole). Both sides agreed that the case turned on the issue of penal versus remedial. The court first decided that its decision should not be controlled by Szpila v. Burke, 279 Ill. App. 3d 964, 665 N.E.2d 357 (1996), in which the appeals court decided that a tenant was entitled to damages once rather than for each separate violation of the ordinance. In that case, the First District said, it found willfulness because to do otherwise would give a result that was out of proportion to the violation and unjust. A similar case, Namur v. Habitat Co., 294 Ill. App. 3d 1007, 691 N.E.2d 782 (1998), was dismissed because it did not address the question at issue here.

In this case, the court looked to legislative intent to guide it as to whether the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance is remedial or penal. The plain language of Chicago Municipal Code sec. 5-12-010 states that the ordinance "shall be liberally construed ... to promote its purposes and policies," it noted. The court then cited an entire paragraph from Friedman v. Krupp Corp., 282 Ill. App. 3d 436, 668 N.E.2d 142 (1996), in which it had previously written that the ordinance is remedial, because the law itself says its purpose is to establish rights and obligations in the landlord-tenant relationship and to promote the public welfare. Viewing it as penal would undermine the goals of the ordinance, wrote the court. Thus, the appeals court remanded the case to trial court, with instructions to enter judgment for "double damages" plus interest for Lawrence, and to hold a hearing on attorneys' fees.

This decision established that tenants do not need to prove that a landlord willfully withheld the security deposit interest they're owed -- only that the landlord did so. This is an important tool for us as Chicago tenants' rights lawyers, because it allows us to pursue valid cases that might otherwise have been actiionable. From offices in Chicago and Oak Brook, DiTommaso-Lubin handles tenants' rights cases like this, both for individuals like Lawrence and as class actions that bring together neighbors harmed by the same landlord's illegal practices. If you believe your landlord has illegally withheld your security deposit or its interest and you'd like to pursue a claim, please contact our Oak Brook and Chicago class action lawyers for a free consultation outlining your legal options.