Siena at Old Orchard Condominium Ass'n v. Siena at Old Orchard, L.L.C., 2018 IL App (1st) 182133

Siena at Old Orchard Condominium Association (the Association) sued the developer and manager in 2013 for alleged construction defects first discovered in a May 2010 consultant report.
The original 2006 condominium declaration (Article 12) required mediation, then binding arbitration, for covered disputes.
The Association recorded an amendment on August 30, 2011 that deleted Article 12 and stated the amendment was effective on recordation.
On earlier motion practice the trial court dismissed the complaint based on a finding that a letter had triggered the ADR provisions; this court reversed in a 2017 opinion, holding the letter did not constitute the required notice and that the amendment removing Article 12 was valid under section 27 of the Condominium Property Act.
After remand the developers argued the 2011 amendment could not apply to disputes that arose by May/August 2010 (pre-amendment); the trial court denied the developers’ motion to dismiss on the theory the appellate court already resolved applicability.
This appeal asks whether the 2011 amendment (deleting mandatory mediation/arbitration) applies retroactively to a dispute that arose in 2010.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this court’s prior opinion decided retroactivity (law of the case)	Prior opinion resolved amendment validity, so retroactivity question already decided; law of the case bars relitigation	Prior opinion did not address retroactivity; different issue now presented	Prior opinion did not decide retroactivity; law‑of‑the‑case does not apply
Whether the 2011 amendment applies to disputes that arose before recordation	Amendment is valid and should control (Association relied on prior ruling that amendment was valid)	The pre‑amendment declaration governed disputes that arose before August 30, 2011; amendment applies only prospectively unless it expressly states retroactive effect	Held that the pre‑amendment declaration governs the 2010 dispute; the amendment recorded in 2011 applies only to disputes arising after its effective date (no retroactive application)

People v. Patterson, 154 Ill. 2d 414 (discussing law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
Krautsack v. Anderson, 223 Ill. 2d 541 (law‑of‑the‑case and scope of prior rulings)
La Salle Nat’l Trust v. Bd. of Directors of 1100 Lake Shore Dr. Condominium, 287 Ill. App. 3d 449 (declarations are covenants running with the land)
Xinos v. Village of Oak Brook, 298 Ill. App. 3d 520 (contract/covenant interpretation principles)
Kindred Nursing Centers Ltd. P’ship v. Clark, 137 S. Ct. 1421 (addressing arbitration law cited by parties)