Lake Point Tower Condominium Assocation v. Waller
2017 IL App (1st) 162072
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Lake Point Tower Association sued unit owner Diane Waller in forcible entry and detainer to recover possession of Unit 507 and $2,856.89 in unpaid common assessments. The complaint was filed September 10, 2015.
- Waller moved to dismiss, arguing the Association lacked authority to initiate litigation because the condominium board did not vote at an open meeting to authorize litigation before the suit was filed; she relied on section 18(a)(9)(A) of the Condominium Property Act and Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass'n.
- Meeting minutes attached by Waller showed a resolution delegating collection initiation to the managing agent had passed unanimously; the Association's declaration authorized some delegation to a managing agent but did not explicitly state management could initiate litigation.
- The trial court initially dismissed the complaint without prejudice, then sua sponte reconsidered and ordered dismissal with prejudice under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273. The Association sought leave to amend and argued the board later voted at an open meeting to pursue collections, curing any defect.
- On appeal, the Appellate Court treated Waller’s challenge as a section 2-619 motion (an affirmative defense based on lack of capacity), concluded that a post-filing open-meeting vote cured the defect, and held the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing with prejudice and denying leave to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Association) | Defendant's Argument (Waller) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether board vote at an open meeting was required before filing collections/forcible entry action | Not required; delegation to managing agent or subsequent board vote cures any defect | Required: board must vote at an open meeting to authorize litigation; failure strips authority and warrants dismissal | Court treated challenge as 2-619, found post-filing open-meeting vote cured defect and rejected dismissal with prejudice |
| Proper procedural basis for dismissal motion (2-615 vs 2-619) | Association argued Waller failed to identify statute and did not meet either standard | Waller framed claim as lack of authority/standing and as an element of plaintiff’s case | Court concluded the issue implicated an affirmative matter outside the complaint and reviewed it under section 2-619 |
| Validity of delegation to managing agent under the declaration and Palm precedent | Declaration permits delegation of certain powers to manager; management may initiate collections consistent with declaration | Palm and section 18(a)(9)(A) limit delegation; votes and agency actions must comply with open-meeting requirements | Court distinguished Palm (which involved contract delegation and litigation defense) and did not hold that delegation here was invalid; focused on cure by board vote rather than invalidation of delegation |
| Whether dismissal should be with prejudice under Rule 273 or dismissal without prejudice/leave to amend | Association: dismissal without prejudice or leave to amend appropriate because board later voted and amended complaint could cure defect | Waller: Rule 273 requires involuntary dismissal to operate as adjudication on the merits unless exceptions apply; sought dismissal with prejudice | Court held trial court misapplied Rule 273 and abused discretion in dismissing with prejudice and denying leave to amend; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass'n v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Trust Co., 2015 IL 118372 (lien in favor of condominium association for unpaid common expenses)
- Spanish Court Two Condominium Ass'n v. Carlson, 2014 IL 115342 (unit owner may challenge manner assessments were adopted in forcible entry action)
- Richter v. Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc., 2016 IL 119518 (interpretation and effect of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 273)
- Illinois Graphics Co. v. Nickum, 159 Ill.2d 469 (a motion to dismiss must be properly labeled but lack of label is not fatal absent prejudice)