CITY OF McHENRY v. Suvada
954 N.E.2d 276
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- City of McHenry prosecutes building-code violation against Vera Suvada.
- Court previously held Suvada subject to mandatory fine and remanded for days, fine amount, and attorney fees.
- On remand, trial court found 84 violation days, $2,100 total fine, and $1,500 in fees.
- City appeals arguing the 84-day finding and fee award were errors.
- Appellate court holds 121 days, $3,025 total fine, but affirms $1,500 attorney-fee award as reasonable.
- Decision affirms as modified and discusses trial-court latitude, notice, and statutory interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Start date of violation | Suvada's stipulation began July 9, 2007. | August 15, 2007 notice starts the violation period. | 84-day start reversed; 121 days supported. |
| End date of violation | Violation continued until full repair and occupancy readiness. | Violation ended when construction began and house was vacant. | End date set at 121 days total, not extended to occupancy. |
| Attorney-fee award reasonableness | Fees should reflect total incurred, around $27,000. | Fees should be limited to reasonable enforcement-related work. | $1,500 approved; within discretion; affirmed as reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Old Colony Partners, L.P. v. City of Chicago, 364 Ill.App.3d 806 (2006) (construction of penalty provisions and notice considerations; court grants latitude to determine violation)
- City of Chicago v. Cotton, 356 Ill.App.3d 1 (2005) (subsequent compliance doctrine; fines per-day interpreted with discretion)
- Suvada, City of McHenry v., 396 Ill.App.3d 971 (2009) (earlier related opinion; framework for remand findings)
- Mountbatten Surety Co. v. Szabo Contracting, Inc., 349 Ill.App.3d 857 (2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for attorney-fee awards)