2012 IL App (1st) 111360
Ill. App. Ct.2012Background
- Condominium Association sued Kurtz for possession and unpaid assessments; lien recorded January 15, 2009 against Kurtz's unit and parking spaces; lien claimed $15,593.49 plus future charges; Association later dismissed suit after partial payment and released lien, which Kurtz refused to sign; six-count complaint filed December 28, 2009 includes false light and slander of title claims tied to the lien; circuit court granted 2-619 dismissal of counts III and IV, finding statements in suit and lien absolutely privileged; Kurtz appeals only counts III and IV.
- Lien and suit were alleged to be related, but lien existed independently of the suit and served as separate remedy to recover unpaid assessments.
- The appellate court held that the lien statements are not absolutely privileged as part of judicial proceedings; instead, a qualified privilege applies to lien statements unless made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard.
- Court remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, reversing the circuit court's dismissal of counts III and IV.
- Key statutory framework: condominium associations may recover by lien or by action for possession; lien does not automatically render lien statements absolutely privileged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lien statements are absolutely privileged. | Kurtz argues lien statements are not absolutely privileged. | Hubbard/Riegsecker/Sudler argue lien is within absolute privilege since tied to judicial action. | Not absolutely privileged; qualified privilege applies. |
| Whether the lien was sufficiently related to the possession suit to share the privilege. | Lien content is not sufficiently related to the possession suit to be absolutely privileged. | The lien and suit are connected and both authorized by statute. | Lien statements receive only a qualified privilege unless falsity or malice shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- McGrew v. Heinold Commodities, Inc., 147 Ill. App. 3d 104 (Ill. App. 1986) (absolute privilege applied to judicial actions; context matters for privilege)
- Ringier America, Inc. v. Enviro-Technics, Ltd., 284 Ill. App. 3d 1102 (Ill. App. 1996) (extension of absolute privilege to lis pendens where ownership interests affected)
- Duncan v. Peterson, 408 Ill. App. 3d 911 (Ill. App. 2010) (false light/slander of title defenses; privilege discussion)
- Kuwik v. Starmark Star Marketing & Administration, Inc., 156 Ill. 2d 16 (Ill. 1993) (qualified privilege analysis for disparagement claims)
- Levine v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 333 Ill. App. 3d 420 (Ill. App. 2002) (malice standard for disparagement of title)
- Gambino v. Boulevard Mortgage Corp., 398 Ill. App. 3d 21 (Ill. App. 2009) (recording of mortgage lien; interplay of privilege and malice)
- Contract Development Corp. v. Beck, 255 Ill. App. 3d 660 (Ill. App. 1994) (precedent on liens and related remedies)
- Matviuw v. Johnson, 70 Ill. App. 3d 481 (Ill. App. 1979) (discussion of privilege scope in Illinois)