Background
Franklin Friedman sold a condominium unit in 2016. Illinois law required him to provide specified association documents to the prospective buyer, and Lieberman Management Services, the association’s management company, supplied the documents after charging Friedman $470.
Friedman sued, alleging among other claims that the fee was excessive and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. After Friedman died, successor trustee Deborah Greenswag continued the case. The circuit court ultimately dismissed the consumer-fraud count with prejudice, and the appellate court affirmed.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. Greenswag failed to state a legally sufficient claim that Lieberman’s fee was an unfair business practice under the Consumer Fraud Act.
An allegedly high price alone generally does not establish unfairness. The complaint also did not show that Lieberman’s conduct violated public policy, was oppressive or unscrupulous, or caused the kind of substantial consumer injury the Act addresses. The statutory disclosure scheme—not Lieberman’s own business practice—created the seller’s lack of alternatives, and Lieberman timely supplied documents that enabled the sale to proceed.
Key Takeaways
- A high or even allegedly unconscionable charge, without additional facts showing unfair conduct, does not state an Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim.
- The Condominium Property Act’s disclosure provisions principally protect prospective buyers, not condominium sellers.
- A seller’s required use of an association-designated document provider does not itself make that provider’s conduct oppressive.
Why It Matters
The decision limits attempts to reframe a dispute over condominium resale-document fees as consumer fraud. Sellers challenging such fees must allege more than price and statutory compulsion; they must plead unfair conduct attributable to the defendant under the Consumer Fraud Act’s established standards.