Board of Directors of Winnitt Park Condominium Ass'n v. Bourdage
2021 IL App (1st) 192536
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2021Background
- The Winnitt Park Condominium Association sued owner Sherri Bourdage in forcible entry and detainer seeking eviction for unpaid fines, assessments, late fees, and attorney fees arising from association violation hearings.
- June 22, 2017 notice: Bourdage requested a hearing. The board emailed an August 2 notice offering Aug 17 or Aug 22 at 6:30 p.m.; Bourdage said she worked until 7 p.m. and later was on a scheduled vacation.
- The board instead sent a general August 22 email to all unit owners announcing an Aug 24 board meeting that would go into closed session to “hear a violation matter.” The board held a closed hearing on Aug 24 and issued an August 24 order fining Bourdage $50 plus attorney fees.
- The board sent an October 27 demand letter based on the August 24 order and sought eviction for nonpayment. Separately, the board held a January 31 hearing and issued a $700 fine for later violations but did not send a new 30‑day demand for those fines.
- The trial court found the August 24 notice deficient and that Bourdage lacked an opportunity to be heard (nullifying the $50 fine and related fees), and also held the January 31 fines could not be the basis for eviction because no demand letter was issued. The Appellate Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Aug 24 proceedings gave Bourdage proper notice and opportunity to be heard before fines were imposed | The board says it provided hearing dates and Bourdage failed to select or attend, so due process satisfied | Bourdage says the board scheduled a different date without adequate individualized notice, ignored her work/vacation conflicts, and deprived her of a hearing | Court: Notice was inadequate and Bourdage was deprived of opportunity to be heard; Aug 24 fine and related fees are nullities |
| Whether the Jan 31 fines could support eviction absent a separate demand letter | The board contends no new demand was required for later fines during the same action | Bourdage contends the October demand covered only the Aug 24 amounts; Jan 31 fines arose later and required their own 30‑day demand | Court: Jan 31 fines may not be the basis for eviction because no statutorily required 30‑day demand letter was issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (2002) (appellate courts defer to trial court fact findings unless against manifest weight)
- Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207 (1995) (reviewing court must not substitute its judgment for the trier of fact)
- Spanish Court Two Condominium Ass’n v. Carlson, 2014 IL 115342 (2014) (whether owner owes assessments is a germane defense in eviction)
- Circle Management, LLC v. Olivier, 378 Ill. App. 3d 601 (2007) (plaintiff bears burden to prove right to possession in eviction action)
- Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545 (1965) (post‑judgment hearing to vacate does not always cure original lack of notice)
- Lescher v. Barker, 57 Ill. App. 3d 776 (1978) (due process not denied where party fails to avail an offered opportunity)
- Burnham Management Co. v. Davis, 302 Ill. App. 3d 263 (1998) (incorrect amount in demand may not invalidate notice where it relates to past due amounts)
- Elizondo v. Medina, 100 Ill. App. 3d 718 (1981) (same)
- Kalata v. Anheuser‑Busch Cos., 144 Ill. 2d 425 (1991) (appellate review limits on reweighing evidence)