Kroot v. Chan
2017 Ill. App. LEXIS 537
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Defendants Chan and Lau sold a Chicago single-family home in 2013 and completed a Residential Real Property Disclosure Report stating no knowledge of flooding, recurrent leakage, or mold. Plaintiffs Kroot purchased the property June 25, 2013.
- Before closing plaintiffs noted discoloration in the sump-pump room; defendants’ contractor repainted some basement walls and replaced carpet. A contract amendment (via counsel) included representations that defendants had no knowledge of mold or flooding.
- Within 24 hours after closing heavy rain exposed longstanding water infiltration and mold in the basement discovered during destructive investigation and repairs. Contractor estimated damage had existed for at least one year.
- Plaintiffs sued under the Residential Real Property Disclosure Act (765 ILCS 77/1 et seq.) and common-law fraud (plus other claims later dismissed). After a bench trial the court entered judgment for plaintiffs $64,518.67 (liability and damages) and later awarded attorney fees and costs of $28,130.16.
- On appeal the appellate court: dismissed the interlocutory appeal of denial of defendants’ summary-judgment motion; affirmed the $64,518.67 judgment (finding trial court credibility findings not against the manifest weight); vacated the fee award and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of denial of summary judgment | Plaintiffs argued the denial was not separately appealable | Defendants argued they were entitled to summary judgment for lack of evidence of knowledge/fraud | Dismissed — denial of summary judgment is interlocutory; error (if any) merges into final judgment |
| Jurisdiction/timeliness of appeal of March 28 judgment | Plaintiffs argued appeal was untimely because fee order made March 28 order final earlier | Defendants argued postjudgment motion to vacate fees tolled appeal period | Held — defendants’ timely postjudgment motion to vacate fees extended finality; notice of appeal filed within Rule 303 period once trial court disposed of motion |
| Sufficiency of evidence for liability (Act and fraud) | Plaintiffs: defendants made false disclosure and knew or should have known of water/mold; plaintiffs reasonably relied and suffered damages | Defendants: no actual knowledge; defects only revealed after plaintiffs’ destructive investigation; they did not falsify disclosures | Affirmed — trial court credibility determinations supported; evidence supported findings under §55 of the Act and common-law fraud |
| Attorney-fee award procedure and proof | Plaintiffs relied on submitted "Attorney Invoice" to show fees & costs | Defendants argued invoice was inadequate, vague, not supported by contemporaneous records; no hearing occurred | Vacated — invoice alone insufficient; remand for evidentiary hearing with adequate documentation to determine reasonable fees |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Funk, 221 Ill. 2d 30 (2006) (denial of summary judgment is interlocutory and merges into final judgment)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (2002) (errors in denying summary judgment merge into final judgment)
- F.H. Prince & Co., Inc. v. Towers Financial Corp., 266 Ill. App. 3d 977 (1994) (definition of finality for appeal purposes)
- Carle Foundation v. Cunningham Township, 2017 IL 120427 (2017) (policy behind Rule 304(a) discouraging piecemeal appeals)
- In re Marriage of Lentz, 79 Ill. 2d 400 (1980) (Rule 304(a) purpose and effect)
- In re Marriage of Uphoff, 99 Ill. 2d 90 (1983) (posttrial motions toll finality until disposed)
- Board of Education of the City of Chicago v. A, C & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428 (1989) (elements of common-law fraud)
- Raintree Health Care Center v. Illinois Human Rights Comm’n, 173 Ill. 2d 469 (1996) (when nonevidentiary fee proceedings suffice; need detailed breakdown and opportunity to be heard)