Trutin v. Adam
54 N.E.3d 277
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Tenant Manda Trutin sued landlords under the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) after landlords withheld $400 of an $850 security deposit and failed to comply with other RLTO requirements.
- Trial court entered judgment for Manda on February 5, 2014 and awarded attorney fees and costs under the RLTO.
- Landlords filed a late postjudgment “motion to vacate” (denied May 20, 2014) and then a section 2-1401 petition (filed June 20, 2014) seeking relief from the judgment; the court denied the 2-1401 petition on August 6, 2014.
- At the August 6 hearing Manda sought permission to file a fee petition for work opposing the 2-1401 petition; the trial court denied that request and entered an order denying both the 2-1401 petition and Manda’s request to file for additional fees.
- Landlords appealed but did not prosecute; Manda cross-appealed only the denial of leave to file a fee petition for opposing the 2-1401 petition and sought fees for the cross-appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RLTO fee-shifting covers fees for defending against a section 2-1401 petition challenging an RLTO judgment | Manda: RLTO’s purpose and liberal-construction clause mean fees should cover postjudgment collateral attacks that directly target the RLTO victory | Landlords: 2-1401 is a new, separate action; RLTO awards fees to a "prevailing plaintiff," not a prevailing respondent, so fees not available | Court held RLTO fees and costs are available for work defending a 2-1401 petition because denying them would defeat the RLTO’s remedial purpose |
| Whether appellate/cross-appeal fees are recoverable under RLTO | Manda: Fees for prosecuting the cross-appeal are part of litigation costs recoverable under the ordinance | Landlords: (implicitly) statute applies only to original trial action and prevailing plaintiff | Court held Manda is entitled to reasonable fees and costs for prosecuting the cross-appeal and remanded for determination |
| Scope of appellate jurisdiction over earlier May 20 order denying the initial motion to vacate | Manda: Seeks fees only for 2-1401 and the cross-appeal; earlier May 20 order fees not before court | Landlords: N/A (did not prosecute) | Court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the May 20 ruling; appeal limited to August 6 order |
| Proper remedy and next step | Manda: Remand to allow filing of fee petitions and court review | Landlords: N/A | Court reversed portion of August 6 order denying right to file fee petition and remanded for circuit court determination of reasonable fees and costs |
Key Cases Cited
- Price v. Philip Morris, 2015 IL 117687 (section 2-1401 is a separate, independent action)
- In re Detention of Lieberman, 201 Ill. 2d 300 (court may avoid literal construction that thwarts statute's purpose)
- Chesrow v. Du Page Auto Brokers, Inc., 200 Ill. App. 3d 72 (statutory fee awards cover appellate work where necessary to effectuate remedy)
- Melton v. Frigidaire, 346 Ill. App. 3d 331 (consumer-fee statute permits appellate fee recovery to preserve remedy)
- Warren v. LeMay, 142 Ill. App. 3d 550 (fees and costs related to statute-driven claims include appellate fees)
- Ustrak v. Fairman, 851 F.2d 983 (civil-rights fee awards may include fees for defending postjudgment attacks)