L.D.S. v. Fitness Blueprint, LLC
| Decision Date | 12 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | 1-20-0275,1-20-0846,1-21-0288 |
| Citation | 2023 IL App (1st) 200275 U |
| Parties | L.D.S., LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FITNESS BLUEPRINT, LLC d/b/a THE FOUNDRY CHICAGO and UNION STATION CROSS FIT and Any and ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS, Defendants, Fitness Blueprint, LLC d/b/a The Foundry Chicago and Union Station Cross Fit, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. 19 M1 706123 Honorable James A. Wright and Toya T. Harvey, Judges, Presiding.
ORDER
¶ 1 Held: We affirm the eviction court's rulings in all respects. We find that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Crossfit's section 2-619(a)(3) motion to dismiss or stay the eviction action and did not err by refusing to vacate or modify that decision. The court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of L.D.S. and against Crossfit in the eviction action. And finally, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to modify its bond order to abate Crossfit's use and occupancy payments during the COVID-19 pandemic.
¶ 2 Plaintiff-appellee, L.D.S., an Illinois limited liability company (L.D.S.), as landlord, filed an eviction action in the circuit court of Cook County, Municipal Division (hereafter eviction court), against its tenant defendant-appellant, Fitness Blueprint, LLC, d/b/a The Foundry Chicago and Union Station Cross Fit (Crossfit). Following a hearing, the eviction court granted summary judgment in favor of L.D.S. and against Crossfit. The court entered an order of possession in favor of L.D.S. and awarded it damages for unpaid and additional rent.
¶ 3 On appeal, Crossfit challenges the eviction court's: (1) denial of its motion to dismiss the eviction action without prejudice or to stay the action; (2) subsequent denial of its motion to vacate or modify the decision denying the motion to dismiss or stay; (3) grant of summary judgment in favor of L.D.S. and against Crossfit; and (4) denial of its motion to modify the court's order requiring Crossfit to pay L.D.S. use and occupancy payments. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.[1]
¶ 5 In June 2013, L.D.S. and Crossfit executed a commercial lease for retail space located at 125 South Jefferson Street in Chicago. Crossfit planned to use the space as a fitness club. Crossfit leased the space for a term of five years with options to renew for two additional five-year terms. To begin its operation, Crossfit made improvements to the leased premises at a cost of approximately $300,000.
¶ 6 The first five-year term of the lease required Crossfit to pay an annual base rent of $152,500, payable in equal monthly installments of $12,708.33. In addition, section 3.3(b) of the lease provided that Crossfit was responsible for paying so-called "additional rent" comprised of real estate taxes, association dues, and certain property management fees.[2]
¶ 7 On December 1, 2017, Crossfit exercised its option to renew the lease for an additional five-year term at an annual base rent of $165,000, payable in equal monthly installments of $13,750. Approximately two years later, on January 2, 2019, L.D.S. sent Crossfit a demand letter for payment of additional rent in the amount of $155,644.02. This amount was said to include Crossfit's share of increased property taxes as well as a portion of the attorney fees L.D.S. incurred in defending a lawsuit involving rights to an outdoor parking area serving the property.
¶ 8 On January 21, 2019, L.D.S. sent Crossfit a revised demand letter adjusting the monthly rent. The letter stated that, beginning January 1, 2019, Crossfit's monthly rent was increased to $15,870.68, due to an increase in property taxes. L.D.S. noted that Crossfit had already paid $13,750.00 for the month of January, leaving a balance due of $2,120.68. L.D.S also stated that Crossfit owed $75,895.58 for its share of property taxes from 2013 through 2018.
¶ 9 In response to the demand letters, Crossfit sent L.D.S. a letter seeking to exercise its rights under section 3.3(d) of the lease. This section of the lease permitted a tenant to audit, inspect, and copy certain books and records of the landlord.[3] Crossfit requested L.D.S. provide it with copies of documents relating to installments of property taxes for tax years 2012, 2015, and 2016. Crossfit also claimed that its review of the lease and monthly rental payments revealed that it had overpaid additional rent and was thus entitled to a refund of at least $60,143.45.
¶ 10 L.D.S. failed to provide Crossfit with the requested documents and thereafter served five-day notices on Crossfit. Crossfit subsequently tendered a payment of $11,458.33 to L.D.S.
¶ 11 On April 11, 2019, Crossfit filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against L.D.S. in the chancery division of the circuit court (2019 CH 04696). The chancery complaint alleged claims for breach of contract, conversion, and fraud. Crossfit sought an accounting and other relief.
¶ 12 A week later, L.D.S. filed an eviction action in the municipal division of the circuit court (2019 M1 706123) naming Crossfit as defendant. The eviction complaint prayed for possession of the premises along with damages for unpaid rent, court costs and attorney fees.
¶ 13 On April 26, 2019, Crossfit filed a motion in chancery court seeking to consolidate the eviction and chancery actions. Crossfit argued that resolution of the eviction action was necessarily dependent upon resolution of the chancery action. The motion to consolidate was denied.
¶ 14 On May 1, 2019, Crossfit filed a section 2-619(a) (3) (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(3) (West 2018)) motion in the eviction action asking the court to dismiss the matter without prejudice or stay the case pending resolution of the chancery action. Crossfit subsequently filed an amended chancery complaint on May 8, 2019. The eviction court denied Crossfit's motion to dismiss the eviction action or stay the proceedings.
¶ 15 In the chancery court, L.D.S. filed a combined motion to dismiss Crossfit's amended chancery complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2- 619.1 (West 2018)). On October 29, 2019, the chancery court granted the motion in part, dismissing the claims for an accounting, conversion, and fraud. However, the court allowed the claims for breach of contract and overpayment of additional rent to proceed.
¶ 16 On November 25, 2019, L.D.S. filed its motion for summary judgment in the eviction action. The motion was supported by an affidavit from Subhash Saluja, a manager with L.D.S. L.D.S. argued that the undisputed facts showed that Crossfit owed $15,870.07 in rent for the month of April 2019, but only paid $11,458.33. L.D.S. maintained that Crossfit's failure to pay the full amount owed, after being served with 5-day notices, entitled L.D.S. to possession of the premises as well as unpaid rent from January 2019 through November 2019. Crossfit filed its own motion in the eviction action asking the court to vacate or modify its order of May 21, 2019, which denied Crossfit's section 2-619(a)(3) motion.
¶ 17 The eviction court heard oral argument on L.D.S.'s motion for summary judgment on January 28, 2020. Following argument, the court entered an order of possession in favor of L.D.S. and against Crossfit. The court awarded L.D.S. $44,117.40 in unpaid and additional rent. The court also denied Crossfit's motion to vacate or modify the May 21, 2019 order denying Crossfit's section 2-619(a) (3) motion. The court made a written finding pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016), that there was no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of its eviction order with respect to the issues of possession and unpaid rent.
¶ 18 On February 11, 2020, Crossfit filed its notice of appeal from the eviction court's order of January 28, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the eviction court granted Crossfit's emergency motion to stay enforcement of the eviction order, subject to certain terms and conditions. Crossfit was ordered to secure a bond in the amount of $65,000 and was required to pay $13,750 per month for use and occupancy of the premises, along with a past due amount of $2,191.67.
¶ 19 On May 19, 2020, L.D.S. filed a motion asking the eviction court to vacate the stay order. L.D.S. argued that Crossfit failed to make certain use and occupancy payments and failed to comply with the court's bond requirements.
¶ 20 Crossfit filed a motion on July 24, 2020, requesting the eviction court modify its order of March 10, 2020. Crossfit argued that the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting executive order by Illinois Governor Pritzker shutting down "nonessential" businesses such as fitness clubs, constituted a "casualty" within the meaning of section 6.2 of the lease.[4] Crossfit claimed that, as a result, the premises was rendered unusable such that Crossfit was entitled to an abatement of its rent payment obligations under sections 6.3 and 7.4 of the lease.[5] Crossfit requested that the court, among other things, abate the use and occupancy payments retroactive to March 2020, and "set a reasonable time within which to secure and present bond in this matter."
¶ 21 The eviction court heard both motions on July 28, 2020 and afterwards entered an order granting L.D.S.'s motion to vacate the eviction stay and extending the time for L.D.S. to enforce the eviction order. The court denied Crossfit's motion to modify the court's...
To continue reading
Request your trial