Boyer v. Buol Props.
| Decision Date | 20 November 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 1–13–2780.,1–13–2780. |
| Citation | 22 N.E.3d 389 |
| Parties | Jessica BOYER, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. BUOL PROPERTIES, Werner Buol, and Helga Buol, Defendants–Appellants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Richard M. Craig, of Law Offices of Richard M. Craig, P.C., of Chicago, for appellants.
Mark Silverman, of Mark Silverman Law Office Ltd., of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 Defendants Buol Properties, LLC (Buol Properties), Helga Buol (Ms. Buol), and her son, Werner Buol (Mr. Buol), appeal from the trial court's judgment against them for violations of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (Chicago Municipal Code § 5–12–010 et seq. ) (the Ordinance).
¶ 2 Plaintiff Jessica Boyer was a tenant at the subject premises. After she moved out, defendants returned her security deposit to her via certified mail, deducting $220 for various repairs and $3.40 for postage. Plaintiff then filed the instant suit against them, alleging, in relevant part, that (1) defendants failed to provide her with copies of paid receipts for the repair work in a timely fashion, as required by the Ordinance; (2) defendants were not entitled to deduct the cost of repairs from her security deposit, since the damages at issue were reasonable wear and tear; and (3) defendants were not entitled to deduct the cost of postage from her security deposit.
¶ 3 Following a bench trial, the trial court found in plaintiff's favor and awarded her actual damages, statutory damages of twice her security deposit, and attorney fees, for a total of $8063.40. Defendants now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
¶ 5 In plaintiff's amended complaint, she alleged the following. On June 7, 2011, plaintiff and defendants entered into a written rental agreement for the subject premises. Plaintiff paid a security deposit of $1,575 to defendants. On May 27, 2012, pursuant to the parties' mutual agreement, plaintiff vacated the subject premises. Plaintiff alleged that she left the apartment in the same condition as she received it, except for reasonable wear and tear.
¶ 6 On July 5, 2012, defendants mailed plaintiff a check for $1,352.75 labeled “Return of Sec. Deposit.” Included alongside the check was a page titled “Return of Security Deposit Balance,” which stated that $1.15 in interest was added and that deductions were made in the amount of $220 for repairs and $3.40 for postage. Also included was a page titled “Proposal,” which stated: “Bolek and Lolek Construction Co. shall provide all necessary labor & specified building materials to * * * [p]atch, sand, prime and paint the front hallway and archway in the apartment on the first floor.” The page lists the “Labor & Material Cost” as $220. On the bottom of the page there is a photocopy of an unnegotiated check, dated July 3, 2012, from Buol Properties to Bolek & Lolek, in the amount of $220. In the memo line of the check is written the address of the subject premises.
¶ 7 Plaintiff alleged several violations of section 5–12–080(d) of the Ordinance, which provides, in relevant part:
Plaintiff alleged the following violations of the Ordinance. First, she stated that defendants failed to provide her with an itemized statement of damages within 30 days of her vacating the subject premises, and they also failed to provide her with copies of paid receipts or a certification of actual costs for the repairs performed. Second, she stated that defendants failed to return her security deposit within 45 days of her vacating the subject premises. Third, she stated that defendants' deductions were improper, insofar as the damage at issue was reasonable wear and tear.
¶ 8 The case proceeded to a bench trial. Plaintiff was the sole witness on her own behalf. Plaintiff testified that she entered into a rental agreement with Ms. Buol for the subject property from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. She paid a security deposit of $1,575. In May 2012, plaintiff contacted Ms. Buol and requested that she be allowed to terminate her lease early. Ms. Buol agreed to allow her to terminate the lease on May 31, 2012, because Ms. Buol had another tenant lined up for the property.
¶ 9 Plaintiff testified that she moved out on May 27, 2012. After she moved out, she received a phone call from the Buols informing her that there was damage to the apartment, and she requested a walkthrough of the apartment to see what the damage was. The walkthrough occurred a few days later, on May 29, 2012. Mr. Buol and Ms. Buol's husband Peter were present with the plaintiff. At the walkthrough, the Buols pointed out a dent in the entrance archway and some marks on the left side of the hallway. Plaintiff testified that those problems were already present when she moved into the apartment. Plaintiff's counsel asked her whether she told Mr. Buol that she was taking responsibility for anything in the apartment. Plaintiff answered, “No. * * * Werner offered for me to look into if I wanted to fix it myself, and I said I will look into that, and then I could not get ahold of them again.” Plaintiff additionally denied telling any of the defendants to send her anything by certified mail.
¶ 10 At some time after the walkthrough, around May 29 or 30, plaintiff testified that she attempted to call Mr. Buol. Ms. Buol answered the phone. According to plaintiff, Ms. Buol had no idea that there was damage to the apartment. “[S]he hung up the phone on me and I was unable to reach any of the Buols again,” plaintiff said. Plaintiff also testified that she never did repair any of the damage to the apartment, because she “could not get ahold of anybody.”
¶ 11 Plaintiff stated that on June 13, 2012, she sent defendants a letter in which she mentioned that Mr. Buol told her that she could fix the damages herself. She denied receiving a reply letter from defendants that was sent on June 17, 2012. She stated that the first and only letter she received from the defendants was the July 5, 2012, letter that was attached to her complaint. As noted earlier, that letter included a check for $1,352.75. On cross-examination, plaintiff stated that she deposited that check. Additionally, at no time between receiving the letter and July 20, 2012, did she dispute any amounts listed in that letter.
¶ 12 After plaintiff concluded her testimony, plaintiff rested. Defendants then moved for judgment in their favor, arguing that, by cashing the check without disputing the charges imposed by the defendants, plaintiff had accepted those charges under the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. The trial court denied defendants' motion.
¶ 13 Defendants called both Ms. Buol and Mr. Buol as witnesses. Ms. Buol testified that the original term of plaintiff's lease was through the end of June 2012. Plaintiff requested permission to leave early, and Ms. Buol found a new tenant for the balance of the lease. The new tenancy was to begin on June 1, 2012, and plaintiff was made aware of this.
¶ 14 Near the end of May 2012, Ms. Buol observed damage to the apartment; in particular, the entrance archway was “pushed in.” “I'm not a carpenter,” Ms. Buol said, “but the damage was pretty serious.” Ms. Buol testified that the damage was “absolutely not” present prior to plaintiff's tenancy, because the apartment was newly built and the entranceway was newly decorated before she moved in. On cross-examination, she stated that she did not have any photographs of what the entranceway looked like before plaintiff's tenancy.
¶ 15 Ms. Buol stated that she was not present at the walkthrough with plaintiff and Mr. Buol, and she did not personally discuss the sending of the security deposit with plaintiff. However, after the walkthrough, Mr. Buol told her to send plaintiff's security deposit to her via certified mail. Accordingly, Ms. Buol did so. Ms. Buol testified that she has been a landlord for 40 years, and she “[v]ery seldom” returns security deposits by certified mail; she only does so when a tenant requests it.
¶ 16 Ms. Buol also stated that she received plaintiff's June 13, 2012, letter which referenced plaintiff's earlier conversation with Mr. Buol about fixing the damages herself. When she received that letter, she arranged for Bolek & Lolek to prepare a proposal for repairing the damage. She then sent plaintiff a two-page letter in reply. A copy of the letter is included in the record as one of defendant's exhibits, along with a receipt from the post office indicating that the letter was sent by priority mail on June 17, 2012. On the first page of the June 17...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Belhaven Realty LLC
...suit cannot recover losses that could reasonably have been avoided. Boyer v. Buol Properties , 2014 IL App (1st) 132780, ¶ 67, 387 Ill.Dec. 344, 22 N.E.3d 389 (citing Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 350 (1981) ). Belhaven argues that Guadalupe could have avoided all damages if it had te......
- People v. Clark
-
Mayster v. Santacruz
...affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved by the defendant. Boyer v. Buol Properties , 2014 IL App (1st) 132780, ¶ 67, 387 Ill.Dec. 344, 22 N.E.3d 389. ¶ 32 The parties disagree on the standard of review. Scaramouche argues that our review is de novo , as the matter involves undis......
-
Bd. of Library Trs. of Midlothian v. Bd. of Library Trs. of the Posen Pub. Library Dist.
...payment only operates as a discharge to the extent of the amount paid. Boyer v. Buol Properties, 2014 IL App (1st) 132780, ¶ 56, 387 Ill.Dec. 344, 22 N.E.3d 389 (citing Solomon v. American National Bank & Trust Co., 243 Ill.App.3d 132, 135, 183 Ill.Dec. 746, 612 N.E.2d 3 (1993) ). The accep......