Illinois Cases November 22, 2023: Dubish v. Gas Lite Senior MHP, LLC

Case Description

1

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Sangamon County No. 22SC3043 Honorable Dwayne A. Gab, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE LANNERD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Knecht concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

LANNERD, JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held : The appellate court affirmed, concluding (1) the trial court properly allowed defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and (2) plaintiffs forfeited any argument defendant improperly conducted business in Sangamon County.

¶ 2 Plaintiffs, John D. Dubish and Robert W. Brinkoetter, appeal from the Sangamon County circuit court's judgment dismissing their complaint against their defendant landlord, Gaslite Senior MHP, LLC (Gaslite). On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred when it (1) determined Gaslite permissibly raised their monthly mobile home lot rent and (2) "allow[ed] [Gaslite] to conduct business in Sangamon County, IL, *** using business and alias names not registered with the Sangamon County Clerk as specifically required under Illinois law, The Assumed Business Name Act." Gaslite responds that due to the lack of a report of proceedings or bystander's report, the trial court's judgment in its favor should be presumed to be in conformity

2

with the law. Gaslite alternatively asserts (1) it permissibly raised plaintiffs' rent under the terms of the lease and Illinois law and (2) plaintiffs have forfeited any argument Gaslite improperly conducted business in Sangamon County. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Plaintiffs are residents of a manufactured home park owned by Gaslite. Initially, plaintiffs entered into a three-year lease agreement with the previous owners of the mobile home park on October 1, 2015, with a monthly rent of $335. Plaintiffs allowed the lease to automatically renew on October 1, 2018. When the second three-year term expired on September 30, 2021, the lease again automatically renewed and expires on September 30, 2024. On July 1, 2022, Gaslite notified plaintiffs that it had recently purchased the manufactured home park and that the monthly rent would increase from $335 to $495 per month on October 1, 2022.

¶ 5 In November 2022, plaintiffs filed a complaint against Gaslite, alleging Gaslite impermissibly increased their rent in the middle of the lease term rather than upon lease renewal. Accordingly, plaintiffs claimed Gaslite owed them $3020 because it demanded and collected an excess of $160 per month in rent during October, November, and December of 2022 and charged them a $495 security deposit. Additionally, plaintiffs claimed fees for the research and preparation of their complaint. In February 2023, the trial court entered a default judgment in plaintiffs' favor, which was later vacated on Gaslite's motion.

¶ 6 In March 2023, plaintiffs and Gaslite filed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. Gaslite asserted it was entitled to a judgment in its favor because even accepting plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true, Gaslite permissibly increased plaintiffs' rent under the terms of the lease and the Manufactured Home Landlord and Tenant Rights Act (Act) (765 ILCS 745/1 et seq. (West 2022)). Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to a judgment in their favor

3

because Gaslite admitted it increased the rent during the middle of the lease term in violation of the terms of the lease and section 9 of the Act ( id. § 9). The parties agreed section 4.C of the lease stated as follows:

"Notwithstanding any term of this Lease, the Lessor shall give 90 days' notice of any rent increase and no rent increase will go into effect until 90 days after notice is given. Upon receipt of the notice of the rent increase, Lessee shall have 30 days in which to accept or reject the rent increase. If the Lessee 'rejects' the rent increase, the lessee must notify Lessor of the date (which must be a date before the date of the rent increase) on which the Lessee will vacate the Lot (and if applicable, Manufactured Home). In the event that the Lessee does not communicate an acceptance or rejection of the rent increase, such silence shall be deemed as an acceptance by Lessee of the rent increase which shall be due and payable on and after the effective date of the rent increase as additional rent."

¶ 7 After a March 29, 2023, hearing on the motion, the trial court entered a written order, which stated as follows: "Motion for judgment on the pleadings granted as to Plaintiff [ sic ]. Motion for judgment on the pleadings denied as to Defendants [ sic ]." On the same date, the docket entry sheet indicates, "Cause stricken."

¶ 8 Plaintiffs thereafter timely filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs have not filed a report of proceedings or a bystander's report memorializing the March 2023 hearing.

¶ 9 This appeal followed.

¶ 10 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 11 On appeal, plaintiffs argue the trial court erred when it (1) determined Gaslite permissibly raised their monthly rent and (2) "allow[ed] [Gaslite] to conduct business in Sangamon

4

County, IL, *** using business and alias names not registered with the Sangamon County Clerk as specifically required under Illinois law, The Assumed Business Name Act."

¶ 12 Gaslite responds that due to the lack of a report of proceedings or bystander's report, the trial court's judgment in its favor should be presumed to be in conformity with the law. Gaslite alternatively asserts (1) it permissibly raised plaintiffs' rent under the terms of the lease and Illinois law and (2) plaintiffs have forfeited any argument Gaslite improperly conducted business in Sangamon County.

¶ 13 We affirm.

¶ 14 A. The Trial Court's Judgment

¶ 15 We first address plaintiffs' statement in their brief that the trial court "entered a judgment in favor of Plaintiff." Although the court's written order states it granted relief to "Plaintiff" (singular) and denied relief to "Defendants" (plural), the record indicates this was a scrivener's error. First, there are two plaintiffs and only one defendant in this case. Furthermore, the docket entry sheet states the case was stricken following the court's order, and plaintiffs filed the notice of appeal. Finally, plaintiffs admit elsewhere in their brief that "[a]fter reviewing both motions the written judgment [citation] was granted as to Plaintiff and denied as to Defendant, although [the court] verbally described otherwise ." (Emphasis added.) Plaintiffs cannot simultaneously claim in this appeal their motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and the court erred when it determined Gaslite properly raised their rent. Accordingly, the record indicates the court denied plaintiffs' motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted Gaslite's.

¶ 16 B. Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings

¶ 17 Plaintiffs, citing section 9 of the Act (765 ILCS 745/9 (West 2022)), assert the trial court erred when it determined Gaslite was entitled to increase their rent during the lease's term

5

because rent may only be increased upon the renewal of a lease, and notice of such an increase must be provided in writing 90 days before the expiration of the lease. Gaslite responds that the court properly allowed its motion because there was no genuine issue of material fact and Gaslite permissibly increased plaintiffs' rent under section 6 of the Act ( id. § 6) and section 4.C of the lease agreement.

¶ 18 1. Sufficiency of the Record

¶ 19 We first address Gaslite's claim that because plaintiffs have failed to produce a report of proceedings or bystander's report from the March 29, 2023, hearing, this court should presume the trial court's judgment was "in conformity with [the] law and had a sufficient factual basis." Foutch v. O'Bryant , 99 Ill.2d 389, 391-92 (1984) (stating the appellant has the burden to produce a sufficiently complete record on appeal and any doubt arising from the incompleteness of the record will be resolved against him). However, the lack of a report of proceedings or bystander's report does not impede this court's review of whether the trial court properly allowed Gaslite's motion for judgment on the pleadings because (1) as explained in more detail below, our review is de novo ( Farmers Insurance Exchange v. Cheekati , 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, ¶ 12) and (2) plaintiffs have included all of the relevant pleadings as part of the common law record on appeal. Accordingly, this court will address on the merits whether the court erred when it allowed Gaslite's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

¶ 20 2. Applicable Law

¶ 21 a. Judgments on the Pleadings

¶ 22 Section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that "[a]ny party may reasonably move for judgment on the pleadings." 735 ILCS 5/2-615(e) (West 2022). "Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the pleadings disclose no genuine issue of material fact and the

6

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Illinois State Bar Ass'n Mutual Insurance Co. v. Leighton Legal Group, LLC , 2018 IL App (4th) 170548, ¶ 33.

¶ 23 This court reviews the granting or denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings de novo . Cheekati , 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, ¶ 12; Hooker v. Illinois State Board of Elections , 2016 IL 121077, ¶ 21. Upon de novo review, this court performs the same analysis as the trial judge. Khan v. BDO Seidman, LLP , 408 Ill.App.3d 564, 578 (2011). "When presented with a section 2-615(e) motion, 'the trial court can only consider the facts apparent from the face of the pleadings, attachments to the pleadings, judicial admissions in the record, and matters subject to judicial notice.'" Cheekati , 2022 IL App (4th) 210023, ¶ 12 (quoting Leighton Legal Group, LLC , 2018 IL App (4th) 170548, ¶ 33).

¶ 24 b. The Act

¶ 25 Section 6(d) of the Act provides as follows:

"The park owner shall give 90 days' notice of any rent increase and no rent increase shall go into effect until 90 days after the notice. Upon receipt of the notice of the rent increase, a tenant shall have 30 days in which to accept or reject the rent increase. If the tenant rejects the rent increase, the tenant must notify the park owner of the date on which the tenant will vacate the premises, which shall be a date before the effective date of the rent increase." 765 ILCS 745/6(d) (West 2022).

Additionally, section 9 of the Act provides as follows:

"The owner shall not change the rental terms nor increase the cost of fees, except as provided herein.

***

7

Rents charged to a tenant by a park owner may be increased upon the renewal of a lease. Notification of an increase shall be delivered 90 days prior to expiration of the lease." (Emphasis added.) Id. § 9.

¶ 26 3. Whether Gaslite Was Entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings

¶ 27 Here, Gaslite was entitled to judgment on the pleadings because, even accepting all of plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true, they have not shown Gaslite breached the lease agreement or violated the Act when it increased plaintiffs' rent as a matter of law. Plaintiffs incorrectly posit that section 9 of the Act prohibits a mobile home park owner from increasing rent during the term of the lease. We agree with Gaslite that the language of section 9 merely permits - not limits-a park owner to increase rent upon a lease renewal and provides the timeline for notification to the tenant ( i.e. , 90 days from the expiration of the current lease). See id. ("Rents charged to a tenant by a park owner may be increased upon the renewal of a lease." (Emphasis added.)). Section 6 of the Act-which section 4.C of the lease closely tracks-similarly does not limit rent increases to lease renewals. See id. § 6(d). Neither section of the Act contains any provision prohibiting a park owner from increasing rent during the term of lease.

¶ 28 Plaintiffs allege they were notified of the increase on July 1, 2022, which was to take effect October 1, 2022. Plaintiffs did not reject the increase by informing Gaslite they intended to vacate as required by section 4.C of the lease and section 6(d) of the Act ( id. ). Accepting plaintiffs' allegations as true, Gaslite provided them with more than 90 days' notice of the rent increase and therefore abided by the terms of the lease and the Act. Accordingly, plaintiffs failed to plead facts which would entitle them to relief, and the trial court properly granted Gaslite's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

¶ 29 C. Plaintiffs' Forfeited Arguments

8

¶ 30 Plaintiffs next argue the trial court erred when it "allow[ed] [Gaslite] to conduct business in Sangamon County, IL, *** using business and alias names not registered with the Sangamon County Clerk as specifically required under Illinois law, The Assumed Business Name Act." We note that although plaintiffs only formally enumerate two issues on appeal, they raise the following additional issues in the body of their brief, which were not presented to the trial court: (1) paragraph M of the lease limited rent increases for 24-month leases to 10% between the first and second years of the lease, (2) the rent increase undermined public policy, (3) Gaslite violated sections 4, 11(h), and 17 of the Act ( id. §§ 6, 11(h), 17), (4) Gaslite improperly charged certain fees for water/sewer and trash, (5) the $495 security deposit was excessive under section 12(b) of the Act ( id. § 12(b)), (6) Gaslite's conduct violated the Consumer Fraud &Deceptive Business Practices Act, and (7) Gaslite is not in compliance with various state laws and city ordinances. Gaslite argues plaintiffs' have forfeited these arguments along with the issue of Gaslite's operation of businesses or use of alias names not registered in Sangamon County. We agree with Gaslite.

¶ 31 Arguments not raised in the trial court are considered forfeited on appeal. Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Q Ill. Development, LLC , 2016 IL App (4th) 160271, ¶ 49. The record shows plaintiffs limited their complaint to the allegation Gaslite impermissibly raised their rent under the Act. Plaintiffs do not provide any compelling reason why this court should excuse their forfeiture. Due to the lack of a report of proceedings or bystander's report, it is not clear whether plaintiffs' claims were raised during the March 2023 hearing. Because it is the appellant's burden to produce a complete record on appeal, this court will resolve the doubt arising from this insufficiency against plaintiffs. O'Bryant , 99 Ill.2d at 391-92. We conclude plaintiffs have

9

forfeited the aforementioned arguments by failing to raise them in the trial court. Accordingly, this court declines to address them.

¶ 32 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 33 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

¶ 34 Affirmed.