| |
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)
|
|
Spiegel v. Hollywood Towers Condo. Ass'n, 283 Ill. App. 3d 992,
999 (1st Dist. 1996)
The condo association that evicts renters of condo unit
is NOT bound by the RLTO as a successor in interest according to this Appellate
Court Opinion. Fortunately, Tenant's attorney
escapes sanctions for arguing that condo association
SHOULD be bound by RLTO. Read closely, this case
only denies that condo association can be landlord as
"successor in interest". Perhaps, where condo
association management company acts as "agent" of unit's
owner in the rental, condo association could be a
landlord.
"We turn to the
merits of plaintiffs' claim that the ordinance is applicable to the
Association. The ordinance defines "landlord" as "the owner, agent,
lessor or sublessor, or the successor in interest of any of them, of a
dwelling unit or the building of which it is part." Chicago Municipal
Code § 5-12-030(b) (November 6, 1991). [Tenants] do not dispute that the
[unit owners] were the owners of the condominium unit, but rather claim
that the Association acted as their successor in interest as
contemplated by the ordinance.
Black's Law Dictionary defines "successor in interest": "a party must
continue to retain the same rights as original owner without change in
ownership and there must be change in form only and not in substance,
and [a] transferee is not a 'successor in interest.'" Black's Law
Dictionary 1283-84 (5th ed. 1979).
Here, the Association derived its right to maintain an action for
possession not from the [unit owners] but from the Condominium Property
Act. As stated previously, that act provides that an association may
proceed directly against a tenant for any breach by a tenant of any
covenants, rules, regulations, or bylaws. 765 ILCS 605/18(n)(ii) (West
1992). Because the Association had the right to maintain an action for
possession independent of the [unit owners], we conclude that it was not
a successor in interest to which the ordinance would apply."
|
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
