Background
Robert O’Connor sought to evict Kimberly Scott from a Chicago apartment after serving her an October 2024 “120 Day Notice of Termination of Tenancy” stating that her tenancy would end February 28, 2025. Scott remained in possession, and O’Connor filed an eviction complaint alleging that she refused to leave after their oral or written lease ended.
There was no written lease in the record and no evidence establishing the terms or expiration date of any lease or holdover tenancy. O’Connor served requests to admit asking only whether Scott received the notice and remained in possession; she admitted both. The Cook County circuit court granted O’Connor summary judgment and entered an eviction order.
The Court’s Holding
The Illinois Appellate Court vacated the summary judgment and remanded. O’Connor did not meet his initial burden to establish, without dispute, his entitlement to possession as a matter of law.
Although O’Connor relied on the 120-day notice, he neither identified the law that purportedly made that notice valid nor supplied evidence of the lease or tenancy end date needed to assess whether the notice complied with the applicable requirement. The court declined to infer whether the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance or the state notice statute governed, or to infer the tenancy’s end date from the notice itself.
Key Takeaways
- An eviction plaintiff seeking summary judgment must establish the legal validity of the termination notice.
- Admissions of notice receipt and continued possession do not alone prove a landlord’s right to possession.
- A movant cannot rely on assumptions about the governing notice law or the lease’s expiration date at summary judgment.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that eviction cases remain subject to ordinary summary-judgment standards. Even where a landlord believes the operative facts are straightforward, the record must identify the governing notice rule and establish the facts showing compliance with it.