4300 Marine Drive Condominium Association v. Jeanne Tenenblatt, 221 Ill. App. 3d 877 (1st Dist. 1991) A unit owner was causing disturbances, committing theft and assaulting neighbors. The association brought action to terminate her right to occupy the unit. During the pendency of the case, a guardian was appointed and the unit owner obtained treatment. In the meantime, the parties fought over the attorneys' fees sought by the association. The court upheld the fee awards pursuant to the declaration and the Condominium Property Act for those fees and costs incurred in enforcing the declaration.
Adams v. Meyers, 250 Ill. App. 3d 477 (1st Dist. 1993) This case was a controversy about a number of alleged improper practices and procedures in conducting an association election. The court held that unit owners have standing to contest the election procedures of an association even if they are not directly harmed (such as losing an election). However, the court will refuse to decide moot controversies such as irregularities in long-past elections or challenges that would not alter the outcome even if they succeeded. The court upheld as valid the proxy procedures and other election procedures used by many associations in board elections.
Apple II Condominium Association v. Worth Bank and Trust, 277 Ill. App. 3d 345 (1st Dist. 1995) This case upheld the right of an association to amend its declaration of condominium to prohibit leasing or to enact leasing restrictions, provided the association uses the proper procedures to pass the amendment. The court stated that restrictions contained in covenants are clothed with a strong presumption of validity and will not be invalidated unless they are wholly arbitrary in their application, are against public policy, or interfere with the constitutional rights of the unit owners.
Crest Builders, Inc. v. Willow Falls Improvement Association, 74 Ill. App. 3d 420 (2nd Dist 1979) The developer asserted that its rights under the declaration were "vested" and therefore the Association could not change those rights by an amendment to the declaration. The court ruled that rights granted in the declaration were expressly subject to amendment or modification in accordance with the amendment procedure set forth in the declaration. The association can modify rights and obligations established in the declaration as long as it properly followed the procedures for amendment as stated in the declaration or pursuant to the Condominium Property Act.
Gabriel Builders v. Westchester Condominium Association, 268 Ill. App. 3d 1065 (1st Dist. 1994) After turnover of control from the developers to the unit owner board, the developers sued the association, claiming that the developers had expended more than $87,000.00 for common area expenses but had only collected about $35,000 for condominium assessments plus over $25,000 of assessments owed by the developer, leaving over $27,000 due and owing from the condominium association. The association defended on the basis that the developers had failed to provide an accounting at the turnover, as required by Section 18.2 of the Condominium Property Act. The court ruled that Section 18.2, or the failure of the developer to comply with Section 18/2 does not preclude the developer from seeking compensation for common expenses incurred on behalf of the association.
Huskey v. Board of Managers of Condominiums of Edelweiss, Inc., ___ Ill. App. 3d ___ (1st Dist. 1998). No. 1-97-1930 The board of managers filed an amendment to the declaration to correct the percentage interests in the common elements as assigned by the developer in the original declaration and the add-on amendments filed by the developer. The board argued that the developer had erroneously calculated the percentage interests and that Section 27(b) of the Condominium Property Act (scrivener's errors) allowed them to correct the error. The court ruled that Section 4(e) of the Act governs this situation because it specifically states that percentage interests in the common elements can be changed only by the agreement of all of the unit owners. The court ruled that a condominium board cannot alter the percentage interests through the use of a scrivener's error amendment.
Klikas v. Hanover Square Condominium Association, 240 Ill. App. 3d 715 (1st Dist. 1992) The plaintiff sued the association for negligence after he slipped and fell on snow and ice in the common elements. Although a property owner has no duty to remove and is not liable for injuries caused by natural accumulations of snow and ice, the plaintiff argued that the municipal ordinance imposed a duty to shovel the public walks. The court rejected that argument and also found that the declaration did not create a duty to remove snow or ice from the public walk. Had the accident occurred on the common elements, the board may have assumed the duty according to the requirements of the declaration.
LaSalle National Bank v. 850 DeWitt Place Condominium Association, 257 Ill. App. 3d 540 (1st Dist. 1994) This was a dispute between the owner of a garage facility in a condominium building and the association regarding three areas located in the garage property (the bicycle room, storage areas, and boiler room area). The association claimed that these were common elements even though they were included within the legal description of the garage and the association sought reformation of the legal description. Where parties have an actual agreement and make a mutual mistake when reducing that agreement to writing, the court may modify the written agreement to reflect the actual intent of the parties. The court reformed the garage property legal description to exclude the bicycle room and storage areas. As for the boiler room, the court found that the area was a necessary part of the garage, but it granted to the association a perpetual easement by implication to use and maintain the area in order to maintain, service, repair and replace equipment including the sump pump system, fire protection system, electrical control box, condense heat return and entry for the main water supply and service as well as related piping and exit staircase.
LaSalle National Trust, N.A., v. Board of Directors of the 1100 Lake Shore Drive Condominium, 287 Ill. App. 3d 449 (1st Dist. 1997) A unit owner sued the board after the owner's unit renovation work was not approved by the board. The court found that the board had engaged in "constructive fraud," ruling that where there is a breach of a legal or equitable duty, a presumption of fraud arises. The board's failure to cooperate with the unit owner by imposing unreasonable requirements and conditions for approval of the renovation project was a breach of the board's fiduciary duty. Over $700,000 of damages were awarded to the unit owner.
Litvak v 155 Harbor Drive Condominium Association, 244 Ill. App. 3d 220 (1st Dist. 1993 A unit owner challenged the association's budget procedure and expenditures for capital improvements. This case offers insights into the court's interpretation of what kinds of work will be deemed to be "repairs or replacements" and what kind of work would be "capital improvements" which may require unit owner approval. The court affirms that the board has a fiduciary duty to strictly comply with the requirements of the Condominium Property Act and its own declaration and bylaws.
Maercker Point Villas Condominium Association v Szymski, 275 Ill. App. 3d 481 (2nd Dist. 1995) The condominium association sued the developer for breach of fiduciary duty for failing to fund reserves and to pay assessments during the time the developer controlled the association. There was only $7000.00 in the association's accounts when the developer turned over control to the association. The court held that the developer had a fiduciary relationship (where, by reason of friendship, agency, or business association and experience, trust and confidence are reposed by one person in another who gains an influence and superiority over him, as a result of such confidence) to the association. As a result, the developer had a fiduciary duty to exercise the utmost good faith and not to further his own interests to the detriment of the association's interests. The court held that the developer breached its duty by failing to adequately establish and fund reasonable reserves. Judgment in excess of $70,000.00 was affirmed.
Meyer v The Board of Managers of Harbor House Condominium Association, 221 Ill. App. 3d 742 (1st Dist. 1991) The unit owner sued the board after his requests for inspection and copying of certain books and records of the association were denied by the board. Specifically the board refused to allow the unit owner to receive delinquency records, and legal bills. The court ruled that a unit owner may examine the books and records for a "proper purpose." Once the unit owner establishes a proper purpose, then all books and records necessary to carry out an intelligent and searching investigation. When matters of privacy or privilege apply, as in this case, the court must balance the interests of the unit owner and the interests of the association in deciding what books and records must be disclosed.
Morgan v. 253 East Delaware Condominium Association, 231 Ill. App. 3d 208 (1st Dist. 1992) Plaintiff sued the association after she sustained injuries during an armed robbery that occurred on the common elements. The court held there was no legal duty owed to the plaintiff to protect her from criminal activity by third persons. If the association undertook the duty to provide security, then it would be liable for negligence. However, the court determined that the scope of the security provided by the association was to have doormen who would stop and screen guests, and verify that they were guests of a unit owner (which the doorman had done in this case) but the association did not undertake to guard the residents or to insure against all criminal acts that may occur.
Nikolopulos v. Balourdos, 245 Ill. App. 3d 71 (1st Dist. 1993) The parties entered into a real estate purchase agreement for a condominium unit. After reviewing the condominium's financial statements, the buyer decided to terminate the contract. The buyer sought return of his earnest money. The seller argued that the buyer had a contractual obligation to proceed with the closing and was in breach of the contract. The court held that Section 22.1 of the Condominium Property Act, which provides for release of information about the condominium to prospective purchasers, contains an implied private remedy for the purchaser to terminate the contract within a reasonable time after receiving material adverse information about the condominium
Sawko v Dominion Plaza One Condominium Association No. 1-A, 218 Ill. App. 3d 521 (2d Dist. 1991) The unit owner challenged the right of the association to assign exclusive parking spaces to a garage owned by the association but which was not part of the common elements, and challenged the system by which the association collected a homeowner's assessment by percentage interest contrary to that association's declaration. The court held that the garage was to be administered according to the declaration and that, because the association purchased the garage on behalf of the owners, that all unit owners were entitled to access the garage and the board did not have authority to exclusively assign spaces.
Spiegel v. Hollywood Towers Condominium Association, 283 Ill. App. 3d 992 (1st Dist. 1996) The association filed a forcible entry and detainer (eviction) action against the tenants of a unit for alleged breaches of the condominium declaration and bylaws. The tenants argued that the association was bound by the provisions of the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenants Ordinance. The court held that the Association is entitled to bring an eviction action against the tenants of a unit for a breach by the tenants of any covenants, rules, regulations or bylaws, and that is was not bound by the City of Chicago Landlord and Tenants Ordinance.
Washington Courte Condominium Association - Four v. Washington-Golf Corporation, 267 Ill. App. 3d 790 (1st Dist. 1994) The association was awarded judgment of $1,700,000.00 for breach of implied and express warranties and fraud against the developers due to water infiltration and defects that the developer knew about and concealed at the time they sold units. The court affirmed stating that the evidence supported a judgment that the developers had committed common law deceit and violated the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.