Benford v. Everett Commons, LLC.
10 N.E.3d 367
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Pamela Benford sued her landlord, Everett Commons, LLC, for failure to maintain her Chicago rental unit under the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) and the implied warranty of habitability, claiming property damage and personal injury from leaks and mold.
- Defendant raised three affirmative defenses: (1) tenant repeatedly denied access in violation of the RLTO, (2) failure to mitigate, and (3) past-due rent as an offset.
- After a multi-day jury trial, the jury completed a verdict form finding for plaintiff but assessing $0 in total damages and indicating a $5,850 reduction attributable to plaintiff conduct under two affirmative defenses; the trial court nonetheless entered judgment "in favor of defendant" and ordered plaintiff to reimburse defendant’s costs.
- Defendant moved for reimbursement of attorney fees and costs, relying on the trial court’s order and section 5-12-180 of the RLTO; the court awarded $24,785 in fees and costs and amended its judgment.
- On appeal (Benford II), the appellate court reversed the fee award, holding defendant was not entitled to attorney fees under the RLTO or the lease because it was not the prevailing plaintiff and it had not been a plaintiff or asserted a counterclaim in this action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could recover attorney fees under RLTO §5-12-180 | Fees only available to the "prevailing plaintiff"; Everett was not prevailing plaintiff | Jury found reductions on affirmative defenses; fees recoverable under RLTO | Reversed — defendant was not the prevailing plaintiff and cannot recover under §5-12-180 |
| Whether lease attorney-fee clause authorized fees here | Lease clause unenforceable under RLTO §5-12-140(f) and inapplicable | Lease permits recovery of landlord fees when enforcing lease covenants | Inapplicable — clause did not apply because defendant did not commence enforcement proceedings or file a counterclaim in this case |
| Whether defendant could obtain fees based on its affirmative defenses/setoff | Fees not available because defendant did not plead or seek RLTO remedies or file counterclaim | Jury’s reduction/setoff shows defendant succeeded on defenses, supporting fees | Rejected — affirmative defenses are not counterclaims; without a counterclaim or prevailing-plaintiff status, fees under RLTO do not apply |
| Whether trial court improperly usurped jury or verdict issues in awarding fees | Court usurped jury by entering judgment contrary to jury and awarding fees | Trial court relied on its entry and jury form to award costs | Moot or resolved elsewhere — appellate court previously held the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff must be honored; fee award reversed on other grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Plambeck v. Greystone Mgmt. & Columbia Nat’l Trust Co., 281 Ill. App. 3d 260 (Ill. App. Ct.) (standard of review for contract/ordinance construction is de novo)
- Lake County Grading Co. v. Advance Mech. Contractors, Inc., 275 Ill. App. 3d 452 (Ill. App. Ct.) (distinguishes affirmative defenses from counterclaims/setoff)
- Edward Edinger Co. v. Willis, 260 Ill. App. 106 (Ill. App. Ct.) (setoff/recoupment by counterclaim treated as distinct action)
- Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (Ill.) (appellant’s duty to supply a complete record on appeal; gaps are resolved against appellant)