Bouton v. Bailie
20 N.E.3d 533
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Bouton purchased a Shorewood, IL residence from Prudential Relocation, Inc., which had acquired title from Erin and Robert Bailie.
- Prudential, as titleholder, obtained a seller-completed Residential Real Property Disclosure Report from the Bailies and provided that form to Bouton before closing.
- Bouton sued the Bailies under the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act (the Act), alleging they falsely represented no basement/crawlspace water leakage.
- The trial court dismissed Bouton’s complaint, accepting the Bailies’ argument that the transaction was exempt because Prudential’s transfer is covered by section 15(7) of the Act and Prudential (the relocation entity) is insulated from liability.
- Bouton appealed; the appellate court reviewed statutory construction de novo and considered whether the Act permits a buyer to pursue the original sellers when a relocation entity took title.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfers by a relocation entity that took title from the seller are exempt from the Act so as to bar buyer claims against the original sellers | Bouton: the Act should be read to allow buyers to pursue the original seller who completed the disclosure form; section 55 imposes liability on “a person,” not only the titleholder | Bailies: section 15(7) exempts transfers by relocation entities (like Prudential) and thus the Act does not apply to this transaction; no privity with Prudential | Reversed trial court. The court held section 15(7) protects the relocation entity that took title and passed along the seller’s disclosure, but section 55’s language exposing “a person” to liability permits claims against original sellers who provided false information; remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pooh-Bah Enterprises, Inc. v. County of Cook, 232 Ill.2d 463 (standard of review for dismissal de novo)
- Lydon v. Eagle Food Centers, Inc., 297 Ill. App.3d 90 (standard for reviewing motions to dismiss)
- Muir v. Merano, 378 Ill. App.3d 1103 (purpose of the Act: disclosure form informs buyers of known material defects)
- Santiago, 236 Ill.2d 417 (statutory construction principles; plain meaning and reading provisions together)
- King v. Ashbrook, 313 Ill. App.3d 1040 (example of alternate remedies outside Act)