Kopnick v. JL Woode Management Co., LLC
2017 IL App (1st) 152054
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Charlene Kopnick renewed a Chicago apartment lease for unit 2215 (term beginning Jan. 11, 2014) and moved out when the lease expired Jan. 10, 2015.
- Kopnick alleged landlord (Hawthorne House LP) failed to provide the statutorily required RLTO summary with the written lease (Chicago Mun. Code § 5-12-170) and charged a $450.32 “insufficient notice” fee after she declined to renew the lease 52 days before expiration.
- Complaint asserted three counts: (I) violation of § 5-12-170 (RLTO summary), (II) Consumer Fraud Act violation based on an alleged improper 60-day notice fee and double-rent practice, and (III) unjust enrichment.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under section 2-615 (facial) and 2-619.1; trial court dismissed all counts with prejudice, finding an RLTO summary was attached to the lease exhibit and that Kopnick alleged no actual damages for the Consumer Fraud Act and unjust enrichment claims.
- Appellate court reviewed de novo and examined the attached lease exhibit against the RLTO; it concluded the two-page attachment was not the full RLTO summary mandated by § 5-12-170 but that Kopnick’s pleading effectively admitted a summary was attached.
- Court affirmed dismissal of Counts II and III with prejudice (no damages, unjust enrichment fails because fee was not paid), reversed only the denial of leave to amend Count I, and remanded the RLTO claim for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lease lacked the RLTO summary required by Chicago Mun. Code § 5-12-170 | Kopnick: the attached summary was partial/insufficient and not the full summary of the RLTO chapter | Hawthorne House: the attachment satisfied § 5-12-170; an attachment appears on the lease exhibit | Court: The exhibit is not the full RLTO summary required by § 5-12-170, but because Kopnick’s pleadings (and exhibit) effectively admitted a summary was attached, Count I could be dismissed on the face of the pleading; dismissal may not be with prejudice — remand and leave to amend granted on the RLTO claim |
| Whether Kopnick pleaded a Consumer Fraud Act claim based on the late-notice charge | Kopnick: the lease imposes a double-rent/60-day notice policy and the fee/lease terms are unfair and deceptive; sought injunctive relief and damages | Hawthorne House: plaintiff alleged no actual damages, lease language imposed same 60-day requirement on both parties, and plaintiff was given 61 days’ notice | Court: Dismissed with prejudice — plaintiff alleged no specific actual damages and lease imposed same notice on both parties; injunctive relief unavailable absent a viable underlying claim |
| Whether unjust enrichment claim is viable given the unpaid charge | Kopnick: landlord’s collection/enforcement of notice fee policy amounts to unjust enrichment | Hawthorne House: plaintiff never paid the fee; landlord did not retain any money from plaintiff | Court: Dismissed with prejudice — unjust enrichment requires the defendant to have received and retained a benefit; here plaintiff never paid the charge |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying leave to amend Count I | Kopnick: offered to amend to allege a missing or incomplete RLTO summary and cure defects | Hawthorne House: argued exhibit and pleadings barred amendment (trial court declined) | Court: Abuse of discretion — factors favor allowing amendment (timely, no prejudice, plaintiff offered corrective allegations); remand for amendment and further proceedings on RLTO claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Reynolds v. Jimmy John’s Enterprises, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 984 (Ill. App. 2013) (standard for 2-615 review and combination motions under § 2-619.1)
- Alternate Fuels, Inc. v. Director of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 830 N.E.2d 444 (Ill. 2005) (apply statutory language as written)
- Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 856 N.E.2d 1048 (Ill. 2006) (2-615 dismissal with prejudice only where no set of facts could permit recovery)
- Loyola Academy v. S&S Roof Maintenance, Inc., 586 N.E.2d 1211 (Ill. 1991) (factors for leave to amend pleadings)
- Gagnon v. Schickel, 983 N.E.2d 1044 (Ill. App. 2012) (exhibit to pleading controls over allegations)
- Morris v. Harvey Cycle & Camper, Inc., 911 N.E.2d 1049 (Ill. App. 2009) (Consumer Fraud Act requires actual damages)
- Xydakis v. Target, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 2d 686 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (private CFA suits limited to parties actually harmed)
- City of Chicago v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 821 N.E.2d 1099 (Ill. 2004) (permanent injunction contingent on prevailing on the merits)