Addo v. Linda Aliloska, Wilmette Real Estate & Mgmt. Co.
| Decision Date | 31 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-14-0765,1-14-0765 |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (1st) 140765 -U |
| Parties | PAULINA SERWAH ADDO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LINDA ALILOSKA, WILMETTE REAL ESTATE AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY, CAMEEL HALIM and BCHS830 LLC, As Illinois Limited Liability Company, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County.
No. 06 M1 139513
The Honorable Moira Johnson, Mary K. Rochford, Mary L. Mikva, James E. Snyder, Raymond Funderburk, Judges Presiding.
¶1 Held: In this residential landlord-tenant action, multiple trial court orders concerning discovery, as well as orders granting dismissal of various claims, an order granting summary judgment on various claims, an order denying class certification, and the final order following a bench trial are affirmed.
¶2 Plaintiff Paulina Serwah Addo filed a complaint against defendants Linda Aliloska, Wilmette Real Estate and Management Company, Cameel Halim, and BCHS830 for common law and statutory violations relating to her residential tenancy in defendants' building. Plaintiff appeals eight orders from the trial court in total. She appeals: (1) an order denying plaintiff's motion to deem facts admitted; (2) an order granting defendants' motion to dismiss on two counts; (3) an order granting defendants' motion to reconsider and dismissing a count with prejudice rather than with leave to amend; (4) an order granting defendants' motion to stay class discovery; (5) an order granting summary judgment in part to defendants; (6) an order denying plaintiff's motion for class certification and dismissing class counts; (7) an order closing all discovery; and (8) the final trial order entered following a bench trial. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
¶5 The instant appeal involves a landlord-tenant dispute following plaintiff's residential tenancy in defendants' multi-family apartment building. The amended complaint, which is the subject of this appeal, alleges the following facts. On July 16, 2004, plaintiff Paulina Serwah Addo entered into a residential lease agreement with defendant Wilmette Real Estate & Management Co. (Wilmette) for a studio apartment in north Chicago. The initial lease was for a year, to begin on September 1, 2004, and end on August 31, 2005. The lease required plaintiff to pay $431 in monthly rent. The lease also read "none" in the box designated for a security deposit.
¶6 Defendant Linda Aliloska was the onsite property manager for the property management company, Wilmette. Cameel Halim, also named as a defendant, was the owner of the property. Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges that in August 2004, defendant Halim sold or transferred the subject matter property to defendant BCH5830.¶7 Wilmette sent plaintiff a revised lease agreement, dated February 17, 2005, along with a letter that requested plaintiff to renew the lease before March 10, 2005. The letter also read, "[i]f we do not receive this documentation back by 3/10/05, we will assume you will be moving out and your apartment will be shown to the public." Plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she signed the revised lease agreement in April 2005. The revised lease provided for a tenancy to begin on September 1, 2005, and end on May 31, 2006. Plaintiff vacated the apartment on March 31, 2006.
¶9 In June 2006, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants. In the complaint, plaintiff alleged that on July 17, 2004, when plaintiff signed the original lease, plaintiff and defendant Aliloska also entered into an oral agreement whereby plaintiff would pay $431 as a security deposit. According to the complaint, plaintiff paid that security deposit. The complaint alleges that from September 2004 to March 2006, plaintiff lived in the studio apartment in north Chicago. In February 2005, plaintiff alleges that she extended her lease, with the extended tenancy to begin in September 2005 and end in May 2005, though she vacated the apartment on March 31, 2005. The rent for the renewed lease was $441. Plaintiff alleges that she complied with all lease obligations.
¶10 The initial complaint alleges five counts, all of which concern violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Count I alleges that defendants failed to give her a receipt for the security deposit. Count II alleges that defendants never returned plaintiff's security deposit to her. Count III alleges that defendants commingled plaintiff's securitydeposit.1 Count IV alleges that defendants failed to pay interest on the security deposit. Count V alleges that defendants unlawfully entered plaintiff's apartment.
¶11 The complaint was amended on May 3, 2007, to include class action counts. The first amended class action complaint is what governs the instant appeal. It alleged 3 class counts and 14 individual counts. Plaintiff filed the first amended class action complaint on behalf of two classes. The first class, Class A, was to consist of the tenants who lived in buildings that were owned or managed by defendants during the time that plaintiff lived there, and who did not receive interest on either their security deposit or prepaid rent. The second class, Class B, was to consist of tenants of those buildings during the time that plaintiff lived there who were required to renew their lease agreement more than 90 days prior to the termination of their lease. The amended class action complaint also included nine additional individual claims, discussed below.
¶12 The naming of the counts led to confusion, summarized by the trial court on February 20, 2008.
Plaintiff did not replead.
¶13 Since all 17 counts of the complaint are at issue, we describe each briefly. Class action count I alleges that defendants failed to pay interest on the security deposits paid byClass A, in violation of section 5-12-080(c) of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (Landlord Tenant Ordinance). Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-080(c) (amended July 28, 2010). Class action count II alleges that defendants failed to pay interest on the prepaid rental payments that Class A paid to defendants, also in violation of section 5-12-080(c). Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-080(c) (amended July 28, 2010). Class action count III alleges that defendants required some or all of Class B to renew their leases more than 90 days before the termination of their current lease, which was prohibited by section 5-12-130(i) of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-130(i) (amended Nov. 6, 1991).
¶14 Individual count I, pertaining only to plaintiff, alleges that defendants violated section 5-12-080(b) of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-080(b) (amended July 28, 2010). Plaintiff alleges that she paid defendants a security deposit and defendants failed to provide a receipt for that security deposit.
¶15 Individual count II alleges that defendants failed to return plaintiff's security deposit or to provide plaintiff with an itemized list of deductions taken from her security deposit in violation of section 5-12-080(d) of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Chicago Municipal Code §5-12-080(d) (amended July 28, 2010).
¶16 Individual count III alleges that defendants violated section 5-12-080(a) of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance by failing to deposit plaintiff's security deposit in a separate, interest-bearing, federally insured Illinois bank account. Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-080(a) (amended July 28, 2010).
¶17 Individual count IV alleges that defendants failed to notify plaintiff of the transfer of her security deposit, following the sale of the property to BCH5830, violating section 5-12-080(e) of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-080(e) (amended July 28, 2010).
¶18 Individual count V alleges that defendants violated the Illinois Security Deposit Return Act (765 ILCS 715/1 (West 2006)) when they failed to return plaintiff's security deposit or to provide plaintiff with an itemized list of deductions taken from her security deposit.
¶19 Individual count VI alleges that defendants violated the Illinois Security Deposit Interest Act (765 ILCS 715/1 (West 2006)) when they failed to pay plaintiff interest on her security deposit within 30 days after the end of her first rental period, or within 30 days of her vacation of the apartment, on March 31, 2006.
¶20 Individual count VII alleges that defendants breached their fiduciary duty by failing to deposit plaintiff's security deposit and/or prepaid rent in a separate, interest-bearing, federally insured Illinois bank account in violation of their fiduciary duty as "landlord."
¶21 Individual count VIII alleges that on numerous occasions defendant Aliloska, as well as other agents of the defendants, unlawfully entered plaintiff's apartment without giving her notice or obtaining her consent; and that such conduct violated section 5-12-050 of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-050 (amended Nov. 6, 1991).
¶22 Individual count IX alleges that the defendants failed to maintain the upkeep and repair of the apartment in violation of section 5-12-070 of the Landlord Tenant Ordinance. Chicago Municipal Code§5-12-070 (amended Nov. 6, 1991).
¶23 Individual count X alleges that defendants breached the implied warranty of habitability by failing to repair or correct unsanitary or uninhabitable conditions in plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial