Faison v. RTFX, Inc.
6 N.E.3d 376
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Faison rented a Chicago unit under a 1-year lease (Apr 1, 2007–Mar 31, 2008), paid a $590 security deposit (in installments) and a $40 key deposit; she stayed month-to-month thereafter and alleges additional $10 payments toward the deposit in 2008–2009 without receipts.
- She sued RTFX in a class action alleging multiple RLTO violations (Chicago Municipal Code §§ 5‑12‑070, 5‑12‑080, 5‑12‑100, 5‑12‑110, 5‑12‑170) and breach of the implied warranty of habitability, seeking individual and class remedies.
- Key allegations: landlord failed to (a) give receipts for deposit payments, (b) pay deposit interest timely, (c) disclose bank holding deposit (amendment issue), (d) provide RLTO summary on renewal, (e) notify tenants of building code violations, and (f) repair habitability defects.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2‑615 and 2‑619, arguing statute-of-limitations, inapplicability of post‑2007 ordinance amendments, failure to give statutory notice, and insufficiency of class and habitability allegations.
- Trial court dismissed counts I–III with prejudice (2‑619) and counts IV–V without prejudice (2‑615); plaintiff did not amend and appealed. The appellate court affirmed dismissal in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §5‑12‑080(a)(3) (disclose bank name/address) applies to deposits made under a 2007 lease | Faison: ordinance should apply to protect tenants and not vary by lease date | RTFX: §5‑12‑080(a)(3) was added in 2010 and cannot be applied retroactively to a 2007 lease | Held: Dismissal affirmed — subsection (a)(3) did not apply to Faison because it was enacted after her deposit/accrual date |
| Whether failure to provide a receipt for a $10 deposit payment on May 1, 2009 (§5‑12‑080(b)) is actionable and subject to two-times‑deposit remedy (§5‑12‑080(f)) | Faison: the 2009 $10 payment falls within the 2‑year limitations period; failure to give a receipt entitles her to statutory damages (including double deposit) | RTFX: the lease functions as a receipt; other procedural defenses (timeliness) | Held: Dismissal reversed as to §5‑12‑080(b) — the 2009 receipt claim was timely and the lease did not constitute the required contemporaneous receipt; class component of these claims survives at pleading stage |
| Whether late interest payments (interest due Mar 31, 2009) satisfy §5‑12‑080(c) and statutory remedy in (f) | Faison: interest was due within 30 days after Mar 31, 2009; later $1 payments in 2010 did not cure the late payment | RTFX: either timely paid or plaintiff failed required notice under amended ordinance | Held: Dismissal reversed as to §5‑12‑080(c) — landlord’s post‑period payments did not excuse failure to pay interest within the 30‑day period; claim is viable (and class component survives at pleading stage) |
| Whether failure to disclose pre‑lease code violations (§5‑12‑100(a)) supports a private remedy without lease termination and whether plaintiff’s February 28, 2011 letter satisfied the notice rule | Faison: §5‑12‑100(b) remedies apply to §5‑12‑100(a); her attorney’s letter functioned as sufficient notice | RTFX: subsection (b)’s private‑remedy language applies only to subsection (b); plaintiff failed to give the statutory written notice required to recover damages | Held: Dismissal affirmed — appellate court read §5‑12‑100 and related provisions to permit monetary damages under §5‑12‑090 only after statutory written notice (per Ranjha); Faison’s letter did not satisfy the specificity/timeframe requirements and alleged code violations were not within the 12‑month pre‑lease window |
| Whether habitability and implied‑warranty class claims (§5‑12‑070 / common law) meet pleading requirements and class commonality | Faison: pleaded numerous defects and code citations; classwide injury alleged | RTFX: allegations are conclusory, fact‑specific to unit, plaintiff refused access for repairs, and classwide commonality is lacking | Held: Dismissal affirmed — counts IV and V were conclusory, failed to allege landlord access/notice and facts showing classwide common issues; dismissal proper under §2‑615 |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. Regent Realty Group, Inc., 197 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2001) (landlord’s duty to pay interest on security deposits is absolute and ordinance remedies are mandatory)
- Namur v. The Habitat Co., 294 Ill. App. 3d 1007 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998) (accrual of cause of action for deposit/notice claims occurs when deposit is made or lease offered)
- Meyer v. Cohen, 260 Ill. App. 3d 351 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994) (statutory applicability cannot create anomalous differing rights among tenants in same building)
- Solomon v. American Nat’l Bank & Trust Co., 243 Ill. App. 3d 132 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993) (ordinance provides for return of deposit and statutory damages when landlord fails to issue proper receipt)
- Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009) (rules of statutory interpretation apply to municipal ordinances)