Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Assn'n
2013 IL 110505
| Ill. | 2013Background
- Palm, a unit owner at 2800 Lake Shore Drive, sought production of condominium records related to management (1999 request).
- City ordinance Chicago Municipal Code § 13-72-080 allows three-day production of records without showing a proper purpose.
- Circuit Court dismissed counts, then vacated dismissal and held the ordinance valid; interim fees awarded.
- Appellate Court affirmed; held the ordinance a valid home-rule exercise and affirmed interim-fee ruling.
- Defendants argued the ordinance conflicts with state condominium and not-for-profit acts and is preempted; Palm and City argued no preemption; concurrent operation permitted.
- This Court upheld the ordinance as a valid home-rule action and affirmed the interim-fee award; no windfall logic for fee award; legislature can express preemption if intended
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Chicago condo records ordinance is a valid home-rule exercise | Palm argues the ordinance is a proper local regulation | Defendants argue it conflicts with state statutes and preempts home-rule authority | Yes, the ordinance is valid under home-rule power |
| Whether the ordinance is preempted by state condominium law | Palm/City argue concurrent operation; no express preemption | Association argues conflict invalidates ordinance | No preemption; ordinance valid concurrently with state law |
| Whether the trial court properly awarded interim attorney fees | Fees should reflect prevailing-market rate under ordinance | Argue fees limited to actually incurred; potential windfall | Interim fee award upheld; based on prevailing market rate; not abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Schillerstrom Homes, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 198 Ill. 2d 281 (2001) (three-part home-rule test (local affairs, preemption, and proper relation))
- City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc., 2011 IL 111127 (2011) (section 6(i) concurrent authority after StubHub ruling)
- Scadron v. City of Des Plaines, 153 Ill. 2d 164 (1992) (limits on preemption; state may preempt with express language)
- Roman v. Fox, 184 Ill. 2d 504 (1998) (home rule preemption framework; whether state preempts home rule power)
- Create, Inc. v. City of Evanston, 85 Ill. 2d 101 (1981) (local landlord-tenant regulation under home rule; local needs recognized)
- Ampersand, Inc. v. Finley, 61 Ill. 2d 537 (1975) (interpretation of 6(a) scope; local laws vs. state powers)