Background
Eleanor Lombardi rented a Chicago apartment owned by A.R.G. Partners and managed by Icon Property Management. At lease signing, she paid $900 in March rent, a $400 nonrefundable administrative fee, and $350 for her two cats. She later sued under the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO), alleging that the $350 was a security deposit that defendants failed to handle as required. She also alleged retaliatory eviction after reporting a carbon-monoxide alarm and apparent gas leak.
After the fire department and Peoples Gas responded to the July 2020 incident, A.R.G. gave all tenants 30 days’ notice to vacate. Lombardi alleged the action retaliated against her for reporting hazardous conditions. The circuit court dismissed Icon on the pleadings, ruled for A.R.G. on the RLTO claims after a bench trial, and ruled for Lombardi on her separate breach-of-contract claim for early lease termination.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed the judgment for A.R.G. on the security-deposit and retaliatory-eviction counts. Whether the $350 cat payment was a security deposit was a factual question subject to manifest-weight review. The trial court could reasonably find it was instead a nonrefundable pet fee: the payment was described as nonrefundable in the transaction history, was roughly one-third of monthly rent, the lease did not specify a security-deposit amount, and the record did not establish that the payment was held as security for Lombardi’s lease performance.
The court also held that A.R.G. rebutted the RLTO’s presumption of retaliation. The record supported the trial court’s finding that a serious gas-related safety issue prompted a building-wide evacuation: emergency responders came to the property, gas service was shut off, and both tenants received notice. The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings and found no evidence that A.R.G. acted to punish Lombardi for protected activity. Because the $350 was not a security deposit, Lombardi could obtain no relief against Icon for alleged security-deposit violations; her appeal from Icon’s dismissal was therefore moot and was dismissed.
Key Takeaways
- A fee’s purpose is relevant but not dispositive in determining whether it is an RLTO security deposit.
- A landlord can rebut the retaliatory-eviction presumption with evidence of a legitimate, building-wide safety reason for requiring tenants to leave.
- An appeal challenging an agent’s dismissal may become moot when the underlying substantive claim fails.
Why It Matters
The nonprecedential Rule 23 order applies the fact-specific framework for distinguishing nonrefundable charges from protected security deposits under the RLTO. Labels alone do not control, but a tenant must show facts supporting the payment’s role as security for lease performance.
It also illustrates that close timing between protected tenant complaints and a notice to vacate does not compel a retaliation finding when the evidence supports an independent safety-based reason for the landlord’s action.