Kopnick v. JL Woode Management Co., LLC
76 N.E.3d 105
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Kopnick renewed a 2014 written lease for Unit 2215 at Hawthorne House LP and attached the 18‑page lease (including a 2‑page summary) to her complaint.
- She alleged the landlord failed to attach the full required RLTO summary (Chicago Mun. Code §5‑12‑170) when offering the 2014 lease and later charged a $450.32 “insufficient notice” fee after she declined a 2015 renewal.
- Kopnick sued under the RLTO (failure to attach summary), the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (unfair double‑rent/late‑notice fee), and unjust enrichment; she sought class certification and injunctive relief and admitted she never paid the disputed charge.
- The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2‑615 and dismissed all counts with prejudice, finding the lease exhibit contained the required summary and that Kopnick lacked damages for her other claims.
- On appeal the court considered (1) whether the attached two‑page summary complied with §5‑12‑170’s requirement to attach a summary of the entire RLTO and (2) whether dismissal with prejudice and denial of leave to amend were appropriate; it affirmed dismissal of the Consumer Fraud and unjust enrichment claims and reversed as to the RLTO count only (remanding with leave to amend).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landlord failed to attach the RLTO summary required by Chicago Mun. Code §5‑12‑170 | Kopnick: the attached two‑page document was only a partial/incomplete summary of the RLTO and therefore noncompliant | Hawthorne House: the attached summary satisfied §5‑12‑170; exhibits prevail over opposing allegations | Court: attachment was not the full RLTO summary required; dismissal of RLTO count allowed but denial of leave to amend was improper — reversed and remanded for amendment |
| Whether dismissal of the RLTO claim should be with prejudice (denial of leave to amend) | Kopnick: she offered to amend to allege it was only a partial summary | Hawthorne House: exhibit contradicted allegation; plaintiff effectively pleaded the summary was attached | Court: dismissal with prejudice was an abuse of discretion because amendment could cure defects and no undue prejudice to defendant; leave to amend must be allowed |
| Whether Kopnick alleged actionable damages under the Consumer Fraud Act for the late‑notice fee | Kopnick: landlord’s fee policy is unfair; seeks injunctive relief and claims harm though she did not pay the fee | Hawthorne House: Kopnick alleged only a ‘‘charge’’ and no actual damages; landlord complied with lease terms | Court: plaintiff failed to allege specific, actual economic harm and cannot obtain relief under the Consumer Fraud Act or a permanent injunction; count II affirmed dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim survives when plaintiff never paid the disputed fee | Kopnick: landlord’s enforcement of the fee is an unjust retention obtained by coercion | Hawthorne House: plaintiff never paid the fee, so landlord did not receive or retain the benefit | Court: unjust enrichment fails because plaintiff did not allege the defendant received or retained the fee; count III affirmed dismissed with prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillen v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 215 Ill. 2d 381 (2005) (standards for consideration on a section 2‑615 motion and what the court may consider)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422 (2006) (section 2‑615 dismissal with prejudice only when no set of facts can entitle plaintiff to recovery)
- Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 146 Ill. 2d 263 (1992) (factors for leave to amend pleadings)
- Michigan Ave. Nat’l Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (2000) (statutory construction: read statute as a whole and harmonize provisions)
- Cole v. Guy, 183 Ill. App. 3d 768 (1989) (pleadings construed liberally to do substantial justice)