2020 IL App (3d) 180561
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Sherwood Commons Townhome Owners Association sued unit owner Ricardo DuBois (May 2018) seeking possession under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act (eviction) and breach of contract for unpaid common expenses.
- The disputed charge was a water bill billed by third‑party vendor American Utility Management (AUM); Association treated it on a separate ledger as a user charge/assessment.
- Association sent a 30‑day demand (Dec. 13, 2017); DuBois disputed the debt in writing, made some payments, and contested the amount and whether the water charge was an association assessment.
- At bench trial, testimony established the declaration authorized the board to adopt user charges but did not expressly show the water bill was adopted or that owners had notice; AUM did not testify and key ledgers were not in the appellate record.
- Trial court found the declaration ambiguous, that the Association failed to prove the water charge was a lawfully adopted assessment or the amount owed by a preponderance, and denied eviction and breach claims; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which statute governs (Common Interest Community Act vs Condominium Act) | Association characterized itself as a common interest community and relied on CIC Act authority | DuBois argued the Association was a condominium association under the Condominium Act | Court: Declaration adopted under Condominium Act (master association); CIC Act does not apply |
| Eviction: Is the water bill a common expense or "other expenses lawfully agreed upon" entitling eviction? | Association: board has broad authority to determine assessments/user charges; water charges qualify | DuBois: water billed by third party; not shown adopted as association assessment; amount disputed and he timely disputed debt | Court: Association failed to prove the water bill was a lawfully adopted assessment or the amount owed; eviction denied |
| Breach of contract: Did the declaration create an enforceable obligation to pay the water bill to the Association? | Association: declaration/budget provisions create contractual obligation to pay assessments/user charges including water | DuBois: declaration ambiguous; no evidence water charge was adopted or owed to Association | Court: Declaration ambiguous re water; ambiguity construed against drafter; Association failed to prove a contract obligation or damages |
Key Cases Cited
- Glens of Hanover Condominium Ass’n v. Chiaramonte, 159 Ill. App. 3d 287 (1987) (association has latitude in determining assessments but must follow lawful adoption/notice requirements)
- Knolls Condominium Ass’n v. Harms, 202 Ill. 2d 450 (2002) (statutes on same subject are to be read harmoniously)
- Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342 (2006) (standard for manifest weight of the evidence and deference to trial court factfinding)
- Wackrow v. Niemi, 231 Ill. 2d 418 (2008) (appellant must present a sufficiently complete record on appeal)
- Duldulao v. Saint Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center, 115 Ill. 2d 482 (1987) (ambiguous contract language construed against drafter)
- Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis v. Whitlock, 144 Ill. 2d 440 (1991) (definition and treatment of contract ambiguity)
- Ollivier v. Alden, 262 Ill. App. 3d 190 (1994) (plaintiff bears burden to prove damages and the computation of damages)