Block 418 LLC v. Uni-tel Commc'ns Group Inc

• Decision Date: 21 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 2-09-0034.,2-09-0034.
• Citation: 398 Ill.App.3d 586,925 N.E.2d 253,338 Ill.Dec. 756
• Parties: BLOCK 418, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.UNI-TEL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

398 Ill.App.3d 586
925 N.E.2d 253
338 Ill.Dec. 756

BLOCK 418, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
UNI-TEL COMMUNICATIONS GROUP, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2-09-0034.

Appellate Court of Illinois,
Second District.

Feb. 16, 2010.
As Corrected April 21, 2010.

925 N.E.2d 254

Frederick E. Roth, Roth Law Firm, LLC., Naperville, IL, for Uni-Tel Communications Group.

Timothy M. McLean, Gregory P. Adamo, Clingen, Callow & McLean, LLC, Wheaton, IL, for Block 418, LLC.

Justice HUTCHINSON delivered the opinion of the court:

In June 2007, plaintiff, Block 418, LLC, filed a complaint pursuant to the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act (the Act) (735 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq. (West 2006)) against defendant, Uni-Tel Communications Group, Inc. On November 7, 2007, the trial court entered an agreed order, which stated that, inter alia, “[t]his Agreed Order is a final order resolving all matters arising under this lawsuit, but this Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreed Order.” Subsequently, when defendant defaulted on its rent obligation, plaintiff sought to amend its complaint. Defendant objected, claiming that it had complied with the November 7, 2007, agreed order, and thus, the trial court had lost jurisdiction for future claims. The trial court determined that jurisdiction was proper, and it later found in favor of plaintiff and awarded damages to plaintiff of $45,328.49, the amount of rent due from October, November, and the 12 days in December 2008 during which defendant occupied the premises. Defendant timely appeals, challenging the trial court's jurisdictional authority, and alternatively, the award of damages. We affirm.

In its June 2007 complaint, plaintiff sought possession of 55 South Main Street, Suite 304, in Naperville, $10,472.20 for rent owed, and costs of the suit plus attorney fees and additional rent incurred through the date of judgment.

On November 7, 2007, the trial court entered an agreed order, indicating that the parties had reached a settlement. The agreed order provided, inter alia, that (1) defendant agreed to pay base rent for October 2006, common area maintenance contributions, real estate taxes, and attorney fees; (2) defendant agreed to pay November 2007 rent and other additional rent charges; (3) defendant would receive discounts on rent payments if rent was paid on or before the due date; (4) defendant agreed to certain penalties for late payments; and (5) the trial court “retain[ed] jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreed Order.” The agreed order also provided that “[a]ll payments pursuant to this Agreed Order and all subsequent rent

925 N.E.2d 255

payments owed under the Parties' Lease” must be made by defendant and directed the method by which those subsequent rent payments would be made.

In March 2008, defendant did not pay rent to plaintiff, and on March 25, 2008, plaintiff filed a “Motion to Enforce Agreed Order of November 7, 2007,” seeking (1) an order of possession for the property; and (2) a judgment of $20,580.12 plus costs and attorney fees. On April 16, 2008, the parties reached another agreed order, and at that time, defendant agreed to pay the past-due rent and attorney fees incurred by plaintiff. Paragraph 4 of the April 16, 2008, agreed order provided:

“4. This court continues to retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Agreed Order entered on November 7, 2007.”

In August 2008, defendant did not pay rent to plaintiff, and on September 22, 2008, plaintiff filed another “Motion to Enforce Agreed Order of November 7, 2007,” seeking (1) an order of possession; and (2) a judgment for August and September's rent of $35,075.35 plus attorney fees. The trial court allowed defendant to respond to plaintiff's motion. The record reflects that defendant later paid the August and September rent.

On November 7, 2008, plaintiff filed an amended motion to enforce the November 7, 2007, agreed order, alleging as follows:

“When [defendant] failed to pay the rent when due for the months of August and September of 2008, Plaintiff filed its Motion to Enforce Agreed Order on September 22, 2008. Although Plaintiff has not received [defendant's] rent payments for the months of August and September of 2008, [defendant] has again breached its obligation under the Agreed Order by failing to pay the rent when due for the months of October and November.”

On November 19, 2008, defendant filed its response, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the November 7, 2007, agreed order.

On November 21, 2008, the trial court conducted a hearing and found that it had jurisdiction under the November 7, 2007, agreed order. The trial court noted that the case required a forcible entry and detainer hearing but did not “require a brand new lawsuit. I think you've got a lawsuit here.” The trial court scheduled the trial on plaintiff's claim for possession and damages for December 15, 2008. On December 8, 2008, defendant filed a response and counterclaim against plaintiff.

On December 15, 2008, prior to trial, defendant advised the trial court that it had returned possession of the premises to plaintiff...