Page 1 - 2019 News Letter 5-5-19

Real Estate Roundup

Sharp Thinking

No. 162 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from Sharp-Hundley, P.C. January 2019

No Five-Day Notice Doesn’t Mean No Jurisdiction

Just as decades of apparently settled law governing post-judgment collection methods were turned
on their heads by a decision of the Appellate Court in Chicago last fall (see Sharp Thinking No. 160 (Oct.
2018)), decades of apparently settled law governing eviction jurisdiction were upended by that same court
just as fall turned to winter last month.
In both cases (MI Mgmt., LLC v. Proteus Holdings, LLC, 2018 IL App
(1st) 160972, in the case of collection practice; Goodwin v. Matthews,
2018 IL App (1st) 172141, in the case of evictions), the court dealt with the
impact of Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199
Ill.2d 325 (2002), upon courts’ jurisdiction over statutory causes of action.
In MI, the court held that defects in a garnishment affidavit did not
deny the court subject matter jurisdiction because of changes to the
judicial article to the Illinois Constitution made in 1964. In Goodwin, the court held that alleged non-receipt
of a five-day notice did not deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction because of the same changes.
After those changes, so long as the suit is of the sort usually handled by the court, i.e., a “justiciable mat-
ter,” the court has jurisdiction even if prerequisite steps formerly thought jurisdictional have not occurred.

Moreover, the court said the alleged failure of the five-day notice did not mean that the eviction order
had to be reversed, because the record did not show that the appellant was a tenant.
Damage Counterclaim Not Germane In Eviction Action

A trial judge erred in awarding damages to a tenant who was wrongfully dispossessed of rental
property through the self-help action of a landlord who also sued for possession under the Forcible Entry
& Detainer (now Eviction) Statute, 735 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq.
So held a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago recently. Milton v. Therra, 2018 IL App (1st)
171392.
Moreover, the Appellate Court said, the trial court acted beyond its authority in granting damages on
the counterclaim, necessitating vacation of that award even though the panel plainly thought the award
substantively meritorious.

In Milton, a new owner sought to dispossess tenants of a commercial property. He filed an action
under the forcible act based on non-payment of rent, a claim the court found without merit. The new
owner simultaneously changed locks and discarded some of the tenant’s personal property. The tenant
counterclaimed for costs of repair and for lost profits due to being unable to conduct business due to the
dispossession.

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of Sharp-Hundley, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp Thinking
shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein constitute
educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal advice on
your particular situation, contact a Sharp-Hundley lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.