| |
ILLINOIS SUPREME COURT
Landis v MARC Realty
LLC (2009)
VG Marina Mgmt. Corp. v.
Wiener
(2007)
Lawrence v Regent Realty
(2001)
Dobbins v. Duquid
(1872)
ILLINOIS
COURTS OF APPEAL
Berven
v. Marquette Bank & Trust (2009)
Willis v. NAICO Real Estate
(2008)
VG Marina Mgmt. Corp. v.
Wiener (2007, 2008)
Detrana v. Such
(2006)
Krawczyk v. Livaditis
(2006)
Allen v. Lin
(2005)
Turner v. 1212 S. Mich.
P'ship (2005)
Starr v. Gay
(2004)
Sternic v. Hunter Properties
(2003)
Pitts v. Holt
(1999)
Namur v. The Habitat
Company (1998)
American National Bank v.
Powell (1997)
Szpila v. Burke
(1996)
Plambeck v.Greystone
Management (1996)
Friedman v. Krupp
(1996)
Spiegel v. Hollywood
Towers Cond. Assoc. (1996)
Meyer v. Cohen
(1993)
Solomon v. American Nat'l
Bank and Trust Co.
(1993)
Reed v. Burns
(1992)
|
|
Krawczyk v.
Livaditis, 366 Ill. App. 3d 375, 378 (1st Dist. 2006)
This case
ended "stacking" of double-deposit-sized damage awards for tenants under
RLTO 080. Since this opinion came out on June 15, 2006, tenants
can only be awarded one double-deposit-sized damage award even if their
landlord committed multiple distinct violations of RLTO 080(a) through
(e). That's bad. However, the tenant was found entitled to additional damages
under RLTO 090 equal to one-month's rent. So damages can
definitely be stacked between sections, just not within. That's
OK.
"the payment of a
security deposit is a singular event and the RLTO does not specify
double damages for "each" violation of 5-12-080. Similarly, in Elevated
Properties, the vacant building registration ordinance specifically
provided that every day a violation continued constituted a distinct and
separate offense, with a mandatory fine for each offense. Wiley and
Elevated Properties demonstrate that the City of Chicago could have
employed such language, but chose not to do so.
However, section 5-12-080(f) provides that it "does not preclude the
tenant from recovering other damages to which he may be entitled under
this chapter." Chicago Municipal Code §§ 5-12-080(f) (amended November
6, 1991). Accordingly, plaintiffs are correct that the trial court erred
in failing to award separate damages for the violation of section
5-12-100 (requiring disclosure to tenants regarding legal proceedings,
cutoff of utilities), as the ordinance specifically states that such
violations shall entitle the tenant to remedies under section 5-12-090.
In short, the trial court did not err in its calculation of damages for
the breach of contract claim or the violations of section 5-12-080 of
the RLTO. The trial court did err in failing to assess damages under
section 5-12-090 for the violation of section 5-12-100."
|
|
|
| |
ATTENTION: Because the Illinois General Assembly and the various
Illinois city councils may change, amend, or abolish the law without
notice, the statutes provided here are not guaranteed to be an exact
reproduction of the law at this time. The laws provided here are for
informational purposes only and should not be relied upon before taking
any action. Please consult an attorney.
This web site is intended to supply general information to the public.
Although the information is generally accurate, it cannot be guaranteed.
The nature of Legislation is that laws change quickly, and visitors
should always insure that legal information is accurate before relying
on it. The above information applies the law of the State of Illinois
and City of Chicago. The law in your jurisdiction may be different. This
information is necessarily brief and may or may not apply to your
situation. In all cases, PLEASE, consult a lawyer before acting.
This web site is not intended to be advertising, solicitation, or legal
advice. Thus, the reader should not consider this information to be an
invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on
information provided herein, and should always seek the advice of
competent counsel in the reader's state.
|
|
