Quantcast

Tressler Attorneys Successfully Defend Property Management Company

MADISON - ST. CLAIR RECORD

Friday, November 22, 2024

Tressler Attorneys Successfully Defend Property Management Company

3

Law Firm | Unsplash by Tingey Injury Law Firm

Tressler attorneys Daniel R. Formeller, Jennifer L. Smith, Simone E. Haugen and Sarah E. Melendez successfully represented the Defendant in a complex management liability case in the Illinois Appellate Court. 

Plaintiffs were residential apartment tenants in properties managed by the Defendant. Plaintiffs were required to pay non-refundable move-in fees under their leases and were never asked to pay a security deposit.  The Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (“RLTO”) requires landlords to provide tenants with summaries of its terms upon presentation of a lease agreement.  The RLTO requires a specific and separate summary detailing the security deposits and current interest rates.  A failure to provide these summaries amounts to a $100 statutory fee.  Plaintiffs sued in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging that they were never provided the specific security deposit summary, and were therefore entitled to the statutory recovery.  It was not disputed that the Plaintiffs received a comprehensive general summary of the RLTO. 

The defendant property manager moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the leases adhered to the RLTO by incorporating the general RLTO summary. Moreover, the absence of the security deposit summary was rendered immaterial in light of the fact that the Plaintiffs were under no obligation to submit security deposits. The Circuit Court, concurring with this argument, dismissed the complaint, finding that the Plaintiffs lacked standing since they had sustained no discernible injury. Plaintiffs appealed.In affirming the decision, the Illinois Appellate Court agreed that the RLTO requires landlords to attach both the general RLTO summary and the security deposit summary to rental agreements.  The Court held, however, that the Plaintiffs suffered no injury by failing to receive the security deposit summary, and therefore lacked standing to sue.  The Court's decision underscores the fundamental tenet that standing to sue hinges upon the substantiation of an injury to a legally recognized interest.

Congratulations to Daniel R. Formeller, Jennifer L. Smith, Simone E. Haugen and Sarah E. Melendez on this excellent result!

Original source can be found here.

More News