Kalkman v. Nedved, 991 N.E.2d 889

Kalkmans offered to buy Nedveds' lakefront home; Nedveds executed a 35-disclosure under 765 ILCS 77/35, stating no known defects.
Disclosures listed 23 items; Nedveds answered negatively for all, including walls and floors.
After purchase, plaintiffs found material defects in windows, patio doors, and garage door causing flooding and leaks.
Plaintiffs sued for violation of the Act and common-law fraud; trial court granted partial summary judgment for Nedveds on some issues.
Trial court held defects in windows/doors were material and Nedveds knew of them; court concluded walls disclosure encompassed windows/doors.
Appellate court held the Act does not require disclosure of window/door defects under the walls category; reversed and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the Act require disclosure of window/door defects under the walls item	Kalkmans: walls include windows/doors; must disclose.	Nedveds: walls exclude windows/doors; not required to disclose.	No; walls do not include windows/doors; disclosure not required.

Muir v. Merano, 378 Ill. App. 3d 1103 (2008) (purpose is to protect buyers by providing known defects information)
Bauer v. Giannis, 359 Ill. App. 3d 897 (2005) (absence of disclosure on a flood issue; statutory scope limits disclosure)
Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C., 235 Ill. 2d 1 (2009) (dictionary-based interpretation for undefined terms)
Williams v. Manchester, 228 Ill. 2d 404 (2008) (strict construction of statutes in derogation of common law)
In re Estate of Ellis, 236 Ill. 2d 45 (2009) (plain meaning and statutory interpretation principles)
Krohe v. City of Bloomington, 204 Ill. 2d 392 (2003) (canon of statutory interpretation when language is ambiguous)
Lopez v. Gukenback, 137 A.2d 771 (Pa. 1958) (window as opening vs. part of wall; used for comparative context)