Ovnik v. Podolskey
2017 IL App (1st) 162987
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- In 2009 CMW (corporation) leased a Chicago townhouse; lease named CMW as lessee, John as guarantor. Kimberlee paid a $6,375 security deposit by personal check (2009 deposit).
- Lease renewed in 2011; CMW paid an additional $6,757.50 (2011 deposit), creating a combined deposit of $13,132.50.
- At lease end in May 2013 defendants refused to return the deposit; plaintiffs sued under the Chicago RLTO seeking return of deposits, interest, penalties, and fees.
- CMW pursued arbitration and obtained an award of $21,187.86; the circuit court entered judgment on that award. Kimberlee later moved for summary judgment on her claim for the 2009 deposit.
- Defendants argued res judicata barred Kimberlee’s claim because CMW’s arbitration judgment resolved the same claim and that Kimberlee was in privity with CMW; plaintiffs argued Kimberlee’s claim was distinct and disputed privity and standing facts.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Kimberlee for the 2009 deposit and penalties; appellate court reversed and remanded, finding a genuine issue of material fact on privity (so res judicata could not be resolved on summary judgment).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of multiple 2-619 motions is reviewable on appeal | Ovniks: errors merged into final judgment; focus on final rulings | Defs: trial court erred in denying 2-619 motions (standing, waiver, res judicata) | Court: Denial of 2-619 motions generally merges into the final judgment and is not separately reviewed here; not resolved further because appeal proceeded from final judgment |
| Whether summary judgment for Kimberlee on the 2009 deposit was barred by res judicata because CMW obtained arbitration/judgment | Kimberlee: arbitration judgment covered CMW only; her separate payment and claim survive; privity not established | Defs: CMW’s arbitration award disposed of all claims for the combined deposit; Kimberlee is in privity with CMW so res judicata bars her claim | |
| Whether the arbitrator’s award resolved CMW’s right to both the 2009 and 2011 deposits | CMW: its arbitration statement sought entire security deposit amount; award fixes defendants’ exposure | Defs: award ambiguous as to 2009 deposit | Held: Under Cruz, an arbitration award that disposed of claims for the security deposit fixed plaintiff’s maximum exposure; judgment on award resolved CMW’s rights to both deposits |
| Whether privity existed between Kimberlee and CMW for res judicata purposes | Kimberlee: she personally paid 2009 deposit and was not party to the lease; no privity | Defs: Kimberlee and CMW had aligned interests, same counsel, witness roles, and identical allegations; privity exists | Held: There is a genuine dispute of material fact about privity; summary judgment was improper on res judicata grounds — remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Cruz v. Northwestern Chrysler Plymouth Sales, Inc., 179 Ill. 2d 271 (1997) (an arbitration award that resolves claims fixes defendants’ maximum exposure; awards dispose of all claims for relief)
- River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park, 184 Ill. 2d 290 (1998) (same cause of action when claims arise from same transaction or series of transactions)
- Hudson v. City of Chicago, 228 Ill. 2d 462 (2008) (elements for res judicata: final judgment on the merits, identity of cause of action, identity of parties or their privies)
- Torcasso v. Standard Outdoor Sales, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 484 (1993) (definition of cause of action as a single group of facts giving rise to a right to redress)
- 1010 Lake Shore Ass’n v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 2015 IL 118372 (2015) (summary judgment standard; review de novo)