Page 2 - 2019 News Letter 5-5-19

The panel affirmed the trial court’s judgment against the landlord on the forcible claim. However, it
vacated the award on the counterclaim, ruling that although the counterclaim was premised on the right of
possession, it was “outside the scope of the Forcible Entry & Detainer Act because it seeks monetary
damages.”

“If forcible proceedings are to retain their summary nature, they cannot be burdened by issues that
typically would entail motion practice, discovery, and perhaps expert testimony,” the panel said.

New Landlord Can’t Evict For Previous Nonpayment Of Rent

A new landlord is not entitled to bring suit for rent that accrued before it owned the property, nor is it
entitled to sue for eviction because of nonpayment of that rent, a panel of the Illinois Appellate Court in
Chicago held recently.
Ruling in 1002 E. 87th St. LLC v. Midway Broadcasting Corp., 2018 IL App (1st) 171691, the panel
dealt with a situation where the lease said that upon sale of the property the tenant would “attorn” to the
new owner. The new owner interpreted the situation as involving an assignment to it, but the court said
the new owner lacked standing to invoke the tenant’s prior defaults and seemed to say that that was the
law regardless of assignment theory.
The panel said that under prior holdings, past due rent owed to the previous owner would not pass to
the new owner upon conveyance of the property because “Illinois courts routinely hold that rent in arrears
is not assignable.”

Service Rules Strictly Enforced In Eviction Cases

Section 9-107 of the Eviction Statute, not § 2-203.1 of the Civil Practice Law, governs constructive
service of process in eviction actions, a panel of the Appellate Court in Chicago
ruled recently.
Moreover, the court held that strict compliance with § 9-107 (735 ILCS 5/9-
107) is mandatory. Corlis v. Edelberg, 2018 IL App (1st) 170049.
In Corlis, plaintiff sought possession and a money judgment under the Eviction
Statute (735 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq.). After two failed attempts at service, he moved
for alternate service under § 2-203.1 of the Civil Practice Law (735 ILCS 5/2-
203.1). The court ordered that defendant could be served by mail or overnight
delivery plus posting on the door. Defendant moved to quash, but the court denied the motion and
entered judgment of possession and a money judgment.

The appellate panel held that the more flexible provisions of § 2-203.1 could not be invoked because
§ 9-107, being the more specific statute, “governs constructive service of process in eviction actions.”
Since the service methods approved by the trial judge did not comply with § 9-107, the panel reversed the
judgment.
- John Hundley, john@sharp-hundley.com, 618-242-0200

Brenda\SharpThinking\#162.pdf
●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
SHARP-HUNDLEY, P.C.

1115 Harrison, Mt. Vernon, IL 62864 • Telephone 618-242-0200 • Facsimile 618-242-1170
www.sharp-hundley.com

Business Transactions • Litigation • Financial Law • Real Estate • Corporate • Commercial Disputes • Creditors’ Rights
Arbitration & Mediation • Estate Planning • Probate

John T. Hundley: John@sharp-hundley.com; Stephen G. Sawyer: Steve@sharp-hundley.com;
Melanie Pennycuff: Melanie@sharp-hundley.com; Trevor Sawyer: Trevor@sharp-hundley.com

Advertising Material