Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc.

• Decision Date: 03 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 2-04-0346, No. 2-04-0382.
• Citation: Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc., 354 Ill.App.3d 171, 289 Ill.Dec. 420, 819 N.E.2d 1220 (Ill. App. 2004)
• Parties: Romas DARGIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PARADISE PARK, INC., Defendant-Appellant (Anthony J. Dini, Defendant). Lucia Zuro, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Paradise Park, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

819 N.E.2d 1220

354 Ill. App.3d 171

289 Ill.Dec. 420

Romas DARGIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.PARADISE PARK, INC., Defendant-Appellant (Anthony J. Dini, Defendant).

Lucia Zuro, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.Paradise Park, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 2-04-0346, 2-04-0382.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.

December 3, 2004.

Mark E. Thompson, Des Plaines, for Anthony J. Dini, Paradise Park, Inc., in 2-04-0346, and for Paradise Park, Inc., in 2-04-0382.

Romas Dargis, Appelleepro se.

Lucia Zuro, Schaumburg, Appelleepro se.

Justice BOWMANdelivered the opinion of the court:

After two separate small claims bench trials, defendantParadise Park, Inc.(PPI), was found liable for conversion, illegal eviction, and negligent failure to protect property.PPI seeks to reverse the trial court's rulings.Because both cases arise from a common set of events, the cases have been consolidated on appeal.We affirm the trial court's decisions.

I.BACKGROUND FACTS

PlaintiffRomas Dargis filed a small claims complaint on October 21, 2003, to recover the value of a deck that PPI and its vice-president, Anthony J. Dini in his individual capacity, allegedly converted for their own uses at a trailer park owned by PPI.Shortly thereafter, on November 4, 2003, plaintiffLucia Zuro filed a small claims complaint to recover the value of property that was damaged or stolen allegedly as a result of PPI illegally evicting her from its trailer park.Zuro served summons upon PPI, and Dargis served summons upon Dini.Attorney Mark E. Thompson subsequently filed appearances on behalf of Dini in the Dargis case and on behalf of PPI in the Zuro case.On November 25, 2003, attorney Thompson filed separate answers to the two complaints, denying all of the allegations.

A.Bench Trials

On January 13, 2004, and on February 3, 2004, Judge J. Edward Prochaska conducted separate bench trials on the Dargis case and on the Zuro case, respectively.After considering testimony and exhibits, Judge Prochaska issued two written opinions, making findings of fact and conclusions of law, and explicitly incorporating his opinion on the Dargis case into his opinion on the Zuro case.The following are the collective findings and conclusions of Judge Prochaska.

1.Findings of Fact

Zuro contracted with PPI to rent seasonal recreational vehicle (RV) campsite S50 at Paradise Park during the 2003 season, which ran from April 11 to October 26, 2003(weather permitting), for a fee of $1,100, payable in equal one-third installments by May 31, 2003.The site contract, entitled "Seasonal Site Contract," permitted Zuro to maintain a trailer on the campsite, to use and enjoy common facilities, and to entertain visitors who registered with and paid a daily fee to PPI.However, it explicitly stated: "This contract creates a license and does not create any ownership or leasehold interest in any RV site or in Paradise Park."The contract also stated:

"No site Alterations such as bushes, trees or permanent fixtures may be done with out consent of management.Decks are permitted, with approval of the management, and a signed deck contract.Maximum width of decks is 10 ft. * * * Any decks, bushes, patio blocks, etc installed on your site must remain when you leave."

PPI reserved the right to terminate the contract, as well as the use and enjoyment of the common facilities at Paradise Park, for violation of terms of the contract.PPI also reserved the right to assign RV sites at the expiration or termination of the contract, but restricted the trading or reassignment of sites and contracts without its express permission.The contract contained an exculpatory clause, the terms of which hold PPI harmless, release PPI from liability, and provide a waiver of all causes of action against PPI, for any property damage "related to occupancy and use of an RV site."Finally, the contract required all seasonal campers to maintain insurance for any and all property damage.

Zuro occupied site S50 and owned a 10-foot by 30-foot portable wood deck, which was maintained on the site.Dargis, who was Zuro's guest at the campsite and who had not signed a site contract with PPI, purchased that deck from Zuro for $5,000.He subsequently maintained and improved it prior to selling it to an unnamed third party in the fall of 2003.

At some time during the 2003 season, PPI promulgated a new policy that required each camper who had a deck to sign a deck contract that charged a $200 fee in order to maintain a deck on a campsite.Zuro and Dargis opposed this policy and organized a group of campers to protest it.Dargis then began to remove the deck from site S50, but PPI's security agents prevented him from doing so.

On October 18, 2003, Zuro and Dargis were evicted from the campsite and were given two hours to pack their belongings, after Dini, an agent of PPI, gave Zuro a document entitled "Termination of Contract," which stated:

"As of October 18, 2003 at 2:30 P.M. your contract has been terminated affective [sic] immediately.As of this point in time you are no longer allowed on this property and are requested to leave immediately."

As a result of the sudden eviction, Zuro was forced to leave at the campsite many of her personal belongings both inside and outside the trailer.When PPI permitted Zuro to return to her trailer on October 30, 2003, many of her items were damaged or missing.

Although no reason for the eviction was given on October 18, 2003, Dini testified at trial that Zuro and Dargis were evicted in order to prevent them from removing the deck, which PPI believed to be its property.At trial, Zuro and Dargis testified that they were evicted in retaliation for their efforts to organize other campers to oppose the new deck policy.Judge Prochaska determined that a combination of the two reasons probably led to the eviction.

2.Conclusions of Law

After hearing the evidence at the trials, Judge Prochaska found that PPI and Dini unlawfully converted the deck for their own uses and unjustly enriched themselves at Dargis's expense.He found that PPI unlawfully evicted Zuro and negligently failed to protect Zuro's property.

Judge Prochaska's unlawful conversion determination was based upon the contract between Zuro and PPI.He found that Zuro's ownership of the deck was undisputed, that the contract did not preclude her from selling the deck, and that the contract did not prevent subsequent sale of the deck to a third party.Because Dargis was not a party to the contract between Zuro and PPI, PPI had no legal right to prevent him from removing the deck once he purchased it from Zuro.When they prevented Dargis from removing the deck, PPI and Dini unlawfully converted the deck.Judge Prochaska consequently awarded damages to Dargis.

Because PPI had no legal right to prevent the removal of the deck, Judge Prochaska reasoned that preventing removal of the deck was not a legally justifiable reason to evict Zuro from the campsite.He also determined that Zuro's opposition to PPI's new deck policy was not a legally justifiable reason for the eviction, which was a vindictive and cruel attempt at public humiliation.Because PPI had no contractual basis for the eviction, the eviction was illegal.

Finally, the nature and circumstances of the illegal eviction led Judge Prochaska to determine that PPI owed Zuro, a tenant, the duty to protect her property.He reasoned that although a landlord generally does not owe his tenant a duty to prevent unforeseeable criminal acts of a third person, Zuro's public eviction made it foreseeable that her property could be a target for thieves and vandals.Because PPI failed to safeguard Zuro's property and trailer, its negligence was the proximate cause of her subsequent loss of property.Judge Prochaska consequently awarded damages to Zuro.

B. Posttrial Motions

On February 20, 2004, defendants filed motions to vacate the judgments or to grant them new trials.In both cases, Judge Prochaska denied the motions with respect to the merits of the cases.In the Dargis case, however, defendants argued that judgment was erroneously entered against both PPI and Dini because PPI was not a defendant in the case as a result of not being served.In an order dated March 23, 2004, Judge Prochaska dismissed Dini as a party in the matter, vacated the judgment against him, and ruled that the judgment remained in effect against PPI.PPI now appeals from Judge Prochaska's rulings in both cases.

II.DISCUSSION

On appeal, PPI raises five issues: (1) whether the judgment against it is void in the Dargis case because PPI was not served; (2) if jurisdiction is proper, whether Dargis proved the requisite elements of conversion; (3) whether Zuro was evicted illegally; (4) whether PPI had a duty to protect Zuro's property; and (5) whether the exculpatory clause in the site contract protects PPI from any liability for damages to and loss of Zuro's property.We will address each issue in turn, but first we must address the procedural errors committed by PPI on appeal.

First, PPI challenges many of the factual findings upon which the trial court's legal conclusions are based and asks us to accept its version of certain facts (for example, that Zuro had no preexisting ownership interest in the deck).However, we can review the trial court's factual findings only if we have a sufficiently complete record of the trial proceedings, which we do not.A report of proceedings is not in the record before us.In the event of the absence of a report of proceedings, Supreme Court Rule 323(c)(166 Ill.2d R. 323(c)) authorizes a bystander's report, and Rule 323(d)(166 Ill.2d R. 323(d)) authorizes an agreed statement of facts.Neither of these alternatives is provided to us in this case.It is the appellant's burden to preserve the trial evidence and to present a sufficiently complete record of the trial proceedings to support a claim of error on appeal.Foutch v. O'Bryant,99 Ill.2d...