Illinois Official Reports 

Appellate Court

North Spaulding Condominium Ass’n v. Cavanaugh, 2017 IL App (1st) 160870

Appellate Court 

Caption

NORTH SPAULDING CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an 

Illinois Not-for-Profit Corporation, Plaintiff and CounterdefendantAppellee v. MICHAEL CAVANAUGH and TIFFANY 

CAVANAUGH, Defendants and Counterplaintiffs-Appellants.

District & No. First District, Second Division

Docket No. 1-16-0870

Rule 23 order filed

Motion to publish

granted

Opinion filed

February 14, 2017

March 27, 2017

March 31, 2017

Decision Under 

Review

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-M1-717924; 

the Hon. David A. Skryd, Judge, presiding.

Judgment Affirmed in part; vacated in part; remanded with instructions.

Counsel on

Appeal

Kory Cotter Heather & Richardson, LLC, of Chicago (Elliot 

Richardson, Britney Zilz, and Ryan D. Gibson, of counsel), for 

appellants.

Girard Law Group, P.C., of Chicago (Andrew A. Girard and John G. 

Powers, of counsel), for appellees.
- 2 - 

Panel JUSTICE PIERCE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justices Neville and Mason concurred in the judgment and opinion.

 OPINION 

¶ 1 Plaintiff North Spaulding Condominium Association (North Spaulding) initiated a forcible 

entry and detainer action against the defendant unit owners Michael and Tiffany Cavanaugh 

(collectively, the Cavanaughs) for unpaid assessments, seeking possession of the unit and a 

money judgment. In North Spaulding Condominium Ass’n v. Cavanaugh, 2017 IL App (1st) 

153387-U (North Spaulding I), we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Cavanaughs’ 

counterclaim against North Spaulding and the Cavanaughs’ third-party complaint against 

Westward Management, Inc. (Westward). While North Spaulding I was on appeal, the forcible 

case proceeded to a bench trial. After the close of the condominium association’s case in chief, 

the Cavanaughs moved for judgment in their favor pursuant to section 2-1110 of the Code of 

Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2014)). The trial court denied the motion. 

The Cavanaughs rested without presenting any witnesses or introducing any evidence. The 

trial court entered judgment in favor of North Spaulding. The Cavanaughs filed a combined 

motion for a new trial and to reconsider the denial of their motion for judgment in their favor, 

which the trial court denied. The trial court then granted North Spaulding’s petition for 

attorney fees. The Cavanaughs timely appeal. For the following reasons, we affirm in part, 

vacate in part, and remand. 

¶ 2 BACKGROUND 

¶ 3 A more complete procedural history of this case can be found in North Spaulding I. In that 

order, we affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the Cavanaughs’ counterclaim against North 

Spaulding and the Cavanaughs’ third-party complaint against Westward. Those issues were 

before us on interlocutory appeal based on the trial court’s finding pursuant to Illinois Supreme 

Court Rule 304(a) (eff. Mar. 8, 2016). While North Spaulding I was pending in this court, the 

matter proceeded to a bench trial on North Spaulding’s forcible entry and detainer complaint. 

Here, we recite only those facts relevant to the issues before us. 

¶ 4 On August 1, 2013, North Spaulding filed a verified complaint against the Cavanaughs, 

alleging that they had “refused and failed” to pay their monthly condominium association 

assessments since September 1, 2012. North Spaulding alleged that on December 5, 2012, it 

sent a notice of nonpayment and a demand for possession (hereinafter Notice and Demand) to 

the Cavanaughs’ condominium unit, that the Cavanaughs were delinquent, and asserted that 

North Spaulding was entitled to possession of the condominium unit and a judgment for 

unpaid and accrued common expenses along with late fees, interest, and attorney fees. 

¶ 5 The Cavanaughs answered and filed an amended counterclaim against North Spaulding 

and an amended third-party complaint against Westward. They also asserted three affirmative 

defenses: waiver, “improper motive,” and “insufficient notice.” The trial court granted motions 

to dismiss the amended counterclaim against North Spaulding and amended third-party 

complaint against Westward, which we affirmed in North Spaulding I. 

¶ 6 On December 22, 2015, the matter proceeded to a bench trial. North Spaulding called 

Daniel O’Connor, a Westward employee and the property manager for the condominium 
- 3 - 

building. He testified that North Spaulding was a not-for-profit condominium association 

organized under the Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/1 et seq. (West 2014)) and 

governed by the condominium association’s declaration. The declaration provides that each 

unit owner is responsible for paying assessments in equal monthly installments. The 

declaration also provides that North Spaulding is entitled to take possession of a unit in the 

event of default and that the assessments, interest, costs, and attorney fees will become the unit 

owner’s obligation. 

¶ 7 O’Connor testified that he was familiar with collection letters sent by North Spaulding. He 

testified that they were stored on a server, that the letters could be accessed through a program 

called SmartSearch, and that he was familiar with the storage and retrieval methods used by 

Westward. He indentified the December 5, 2012, Notice and Demand as a “record made by a 

person with knowledge of or made from information transmitted by a person with knowledge 

of the acts and events appearing on it,” that it was made at or near the time of the acts and 

events appearing on it, that it was the regular practice of Westward as agent for North 

Spaulding to make such records, that it was a record kept in the course of regularly conducted 

business, and that the copy provided to him was a true and correct copy of the notice sent by 

Westward. He described how the records were stored and accessed and that a Westward 

employee creates notices from the information gathered from SmartSearch and sends out the 

notices by certified mail to the unit owner. The Cavanaughs repeatedly objected to O’Connor’s 

foundation testimony and objected to the Notice and Demand being admitted into evidence 

because of a lack of foundation, the Notice and Demand was hearsay, and the Notice and 

Demand “has not been signed by the witness. It was signed by a third party.” The trial court 

overruled the objections and admitted the Notice and Demand into evidence. O’Connor 

testified that it was the corporate procedure of Westward to send a Notice and Demand for 

possession to all known addresses for a unit owner. The Notice and Demand sent to the 

Cavanaughs stated that the unpaid assessments and accrued fees and fines totaled $1074.56. 

¶ 8 O’Connor identified Westward’s ledger as a “record made by a person with knowledge of 

or made from information transmitted by a person with knowledge of the [acts] and events 

appearing on it,” that it was made or updated at or near the time of the acts and events 

appearing on it, that it was the regular practice of Westward as agent for North Spaulding to 

make such records, and that it was a record kept in the course of regularly conducted business. 

He testified that Westward stores ledger information in a computer program called Buildium, 

which allows for records to be accessed in a variety of ways. Over the Cavanaughs’ 

foundational objection, the trial court admitted the ledger into evidence, which reflected a total 

unpaid balance of $3204.26. 

¶ 9 On cross-examination, O’Connor stated that he began working for Westward in October 

2013. He admitted that he was not employed by Westward at the time the Notice and Demand 

was sent. During cross-examination, the Cavanaughs’ counsel sought to question O’Connor 

regarding whether he attended any condominium board meetings, whether he was familiar 

with any notices of such meetings, various entries on the ledger, and whether unit repairs were 

charged to the Cavanaughs. North Spaulding objected to each line of questioning without 

stating a basis for the objection, and the trial court sustained the objections without asking for a 

basis for the objections. 

¶ 10 After North Spaulding rested its case in chief, the Cavanaughs presented a written “Motion 

to Find for Defendants at the Close of Plaintiff’s Evidence” pursuant to section 2-1110 of the 
- 4 - 

Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2014)). They asserted for the first time that a prima facie case 

for forcible entry and detainer includes proving that a condominium board properly noticed a 

meeting open to unit owners and voted on whether to initiate litigation against a unit owner. In 

support, the Cavanaughs cited section 18(a)(9) of the Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 

605/18(a)(9) (West 2014)) and Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Ass’n, 2014 IL 

App (1st) 111290. The Cavanaughs argued that North Spaulding failed to present any evidence 

that the unit owners were properly notified of a meeting or that a vote was taken authorizing 

the forcible entry and detainer case against the Cavanaughs. After argument, the trial court 

denied the motion. 

¶ 11 The Cavanaughs waived their case in chief and rested. After closing arguments, the trial 

court found in favor of North Spaulding, entering a judgment for possession and a money 

judgment in the amount of $3204.26, plus $926.26 in costs. 

¶ 12 North Spaulding then filed a verified petition seeking $22,493.10 in attorney fees. The fee 

petition was supported by an affidavit and supporting invoices. The Cavanaughs responded 

that the fees were excessive, that many of the charges were related to defending the 

Cavanaughs’ counterclaim and third-party complaint, that certain fees were unsupported, and 

that the hourly rates charged were too high. On February 8, 2016, after a hearing, the trial court 

granted the fee petition, awarding North Spaulding $23,177.50 in attorney fees. 

¶ 13 On January 21, 2016, the Cavanaughs filed a combined motion to reconsider the denial of 

their section 2-1110 motion for judgment and a motion for a new trial. They argued that the 

trial court misapplied the law because North Spaulding presented no evidence that it gave 

proper notice of an association board meeting or that the association board voted to initiate the 

forcible action. In their motion for a new trial, the Cavanaughs argued that the trial court 

sustained objections when North Spaulding’s counsel gave no basis for the objection. They 

argued that O’Connor did not lay a proper foundation for the Notice and Demand or the ledger. 

The Cavanaughs’ motion for a new trial cited no case law. 

¶ 14 On March 8, 2016, the trial court denied the Cavanaughs’ motion to reconsider and for a 

new trial. The Cavanaughs timely filed their notice of appeal on March 28, 2016, identifying 

the orders subject to their appeal as the December 22, 2015, judgment order, the February 8, 

2016, order granting North Spaulding’s attorney fee petition, and the March 8, 2016, order 

denying their motion to reconsider and for a new trial. 

¶ 15 ANALYSIS 

¶ 16 At the outset, we note that the Cavanaughs’ statement of facts does not comply with Illinois 

Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). They repeatedly interject argument into their 

statement of facts, and on several occasions, include citations to the record that do not support 

the purported “fact.” For example, the Cavanaughs assert that they “have not resided in the 

Unit since prior to 2012, of which [North Spaulding] was aware.” To support this assertion, 

they cite to the factual allegations of their own counterclaim. But in that pleading, the 

Cavanaughs never alleged that they resided somewhere other than the condominium unit in 

2012. And while they alleged that North Spaulding “knew” that they did not reside at the 

condominium unit, the Cavanaughs never established any evidence that would show this to be 

true. 

¶ 17 We also observe that the Cavanaughs regularly fail to cite to the record in support of their 

argument, in violation of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016). These 
- 5 - 

violations are not severe enough to warrant striking their statement of facts, their brief, or 

dismissing their appeal, however we remind them that we have the discretion to do so. Because 

we have the benefit of our decision in North Spaulding I, as well as the trial transcript and the 

record on appeal, we will proceed to address the merits of their arguments. 

¶ 18 On appeal, the Cavanaughs raise three arguments. First, they argue that the trial court erred 

in denying their motion for a judgment in their favor at the close of North Spaulding’s case, 

and in denying their subsequent motion to reconsider. Next, they argue that the trial court 

abused its discretion by denying their motion for a new trial. Finally, they argue that the trial 

court abused its discretion by granting North Spaulding’s petition for attorney fees.

¶ 19 First, we address the denial of the Cavanaughs’ motion for a judgment in their favor at the 

close of North Spaulding’s case in chief. The Cavanaughs argue that to prove a prima facie

case for recovery of unpaid assessments and for possession under the Forcible Entry and 

Detainer Act, North Spaulding was required to prove: “(a) first, that a meeting was held to 

consider whether or not to institute collection proceedings against [the Cavanaughs]; (b) that a 

vote was taken during an open portion of that meeting by [North Spaulding] to institute 

litigation; and (c) that North Spaulding gave proper notice of such meeting where collection 

proceedings were discussed and/or voted on to [the Cavanaughs] within forty-eight hours 

before the meeting convened.” The Cavanaughs argue that under section 18(a)(9) of the 

Condominium Property Act, all meetings of the board of managers for a condominium 

association must be open to any unit owner with proper notice, and that all votes must be made 

at an open meeting. They also argue that in Palm, 2014 IL App (1st) 111290, ¶¶ 51-59, we held 

that in order to pursue litigation, a condominium association must show that it held a meeting, 

voted, and gave proper notice to unit owners. 

¶ 20 The trial court must engage in a two-phase analysis when ruling on a motion made pursuant 

to section 2-1110 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2014)). The standard of review 

depends, in part, on the substance of the motion and the trial court’s ruling. First, the trial court 

considers whether the plaintiff has produced some evidence in support of each element of their 

prima facie case. Barnes v. Michalski, 399 Ill. App. 3d 254, 263 (2010). A trial court’s ruling 

on this first phase requires making a determination as a matter of law, which we review 

de novo. Id. at 263-64. If the trial court finds that the plaintiff has presented some evidence on 

each element, the trial court must then weigh the evidence to determine if any element of the 

prima facie case has been negated. Id. We review these determinations under the manifest 

weight of the evidence standard. Id. at 264. Here, the Cavanaughs did not argue the sufficiency 

of North Spaulding’s case, but instead argued that North Spaulding’s claim failed as a matter 

of law. As such, we review the denial of Cavanaughs’ motion for judgment at the close of 

North Spaulding’s case de novo. 

¶ 21 The Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/1 et seq. (West 2014)) and the Forcible 

Entry and Detainer Act (735 ILCS 5/9-101 et seq. (West 2014)) set forth the procedures 

available to a condominium association for recovering unpaid assessments. Section 18(o) of 

the Condominium Property Act requires that a condominium association’s bylaws provide that 

“the association shall have no authority to forbear the payment of assessments by any unit 

owner.” 765 ILCS 605/18(o) (West 2014). Furthermore, the board of managers “shall exercise 

the care required of a fiduciary of the unit owners” in carrying out its powers and duties, 

including the collection of assessments and the imposition of charges for late payment of a unit 
- 6 - 

owner’s proportionate share of the common expenses. 765 ILCS 605/18.4(d), (l) (West 2014). 

Section 9.2(a) of the Condominium Property Act provides: 

“In the event of any default by any unit owner *** the board of managers *** shall 

have such rights and remedies as provided in the [Condominium Property] Act *** 

including the right to maintain an action for possession against such defaulting unit 

owner *** for the benefit of all the other unit owners in the manner prescribed by 

Article IX of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/9-101].” 765 ILCS 605/9.2(a) 

(West 2014); see also Knolls Condominium Ass’n v. Harms, 202 Ill. 2d 450, 456 

(2002). 

¶ 22 A “prime purpose of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act *** is to provide a speedy 

remedy to give possession to those entitled to it.” Sawyier v. Young, 198 Ill. App. 3d 1047, 

1052 (1990); see also Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Watson, 2012 IL App (3d) 110930, ¶ 14. 

Section 9-102(a)(7) of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act provides that a condominium 

association is entitled to possession of a condominium unit when a unit owner fails or refuses 

to pay their proportionate share of common expenses, the condominium association serves a 

demand in compliance with section 9-104.1 of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, and the 

unit owner fails to pay the amount claimed within the time proscribed. 735 ILCS 5/9-102(a)(7) 

(West 2014). Section 9-104.1 requires the condominium association to provide notice that the 

unit owner has at least 30 days to satisfy the demand and set forth the amounts claimed and 

when those amounts were originally due along with late charges, interest, and attorney fees. 

735 ILCS 5/9-104.1(a) (West 2014). The notice must include specific language that only full 

payment will be accepted to invalidate the demand unless otherwise agreed to in writing. 735 

ILCS 5/9-104.1(b) (West 2014). The demand must be served in accord with section 9-104.1(c) 

(735 ILCS 5/9-104.1(c) (West 2014)). 

¶ 23 We find that the trial court properly denied the Cavanaughs’ section 2-1110 motion for 

judgment because North Spaulding was not required, as part of its prima facie case for 

possession and recovery of unpaid assessments, to prove that it properly noticed and conducted 

an association board meeting where a vote was taken to authorize the forcible action. The only 

case to which the Cavanaughs cite in support of their argument is our decision in Palm. There, 

a unit owner sought injunctive relief against the condominium association for allegedly 

violating the Condominium Property Act by conducting board business in “working sessions”

that were not open to unit owners. Palm, 2014 IL App (1st) 111290, ¶ 19. The trial court 

granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the defendant condominium 

association violated its “declaration and the Not for Profit Act by undertaking to defend the 

instant case without taking a vote in an open meeting as to whether to pursue the litigation.” Id.

¶ 26. The trial court enjoined the board from “addressing, acting on, voting on, and making 

decisions on affairs” except in properly noticed meetings open to unit owners. Id. ¶ 28. On 

appeal, we found that the “working sessions” constituted “conducting board business” as used 

in the Condominium Property Act’s definition of board “meeting” in section 2(w), and 

therefore needed to be done in open meetings. Id. ¶¶ 54-55. We went on to state that the 

“question of whether to assert or defend a lawsuit and, necessarily, whether to expend 

association funds and resources on such litigation is clearly a question involving the business 

of the association,” and section 18(a)(9) of the Condominium Property Act “specifically 

provides that the board must vote on any litigation matter at meeting [sic] open to all unit 

owners.” Id. ¶ 87. 
- 7 - 

¶ 24 The Cavanaughs’ reliance on Palm is misplaced, and no court has applied Palm in the 

manner urged by the Cavanaughs. Palm was not a forcible entry and detainer case and did not 

directly analyze the issue presented here: whether a condominium association, as part of its 

prima facie case in a forcible entry and detainer action, must prove that it properly noticed a 

board meeting, open to unit owners, at which a vote was taken on the issue of whether to 

initiate an action for possession and to recover unpaid assessments. Nor did Palm address 

whether a unit owner may raise the failure to hold a meeting and vote to file a forcible entry 

and detainer lawsuit as a defense to a forcible entry and detainer action. In their appellant’s 

brief, the Cavanaughs cite no other case law and develop no further argument to support their 

position that an essential element of a forcible entry and detainer case is proof that the action 

was authorized by a board vote taken at a properly noticed meeting open to all unit owners. 

¶ 25 The Cavanaughs’ position is also at odds with the Condominium Property Act and the 

Forcible Entry and Detainer Act. See Knolls Condominium Ass’n, 202 Ill. 2d at 457-58 (noting 

that section 9.2 of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act “was adopted to provide a 

constitutionally permissible, quick method for collection of assessment arrearages” (internal 

quotation marks omitted)). Neither statute requires that a condominium association prove that 

it voted to initiate collection proceedings at a properly noticed meeting open to unit owners as 

an element of its forcible entry and detainer claim. The legislature amended both statutes to 

give condominium associations the right to use the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act to collect 

past due assessments (see id.) and, in doing so, did not include a requirement that the 

condominium association prove that a vote was held at a properly noticed meeting open to unit 

owners. In short, the issues in a forcible entry and detainer action brought by a condominium 

association are whether assessments are unpaid, how much is due, and whether reasonable 

attorney fees should be awarded to the association if successful. The legislature could have, but 

clearly did not, made the process of collecting necessary assessments more complicated by 

requiring formal proof of a collection duty in a forcible action. The Condominium Property 

Act requires the association board to collect unpaid assessments and gives the board no 

discretion is relieving a unit owner of their obligation to pay those assessments. This is a 

common sense provision that protects unit owners from shouldering costs that should be borne 

by a delinquent unit owner. In most instances, condominiums consist of a relatively small 

number of unit owners who are not professional building managers and are typically not 

assisted with sophisticated legal advice. The legislature clearly did not intend on providing a 

complicated or burdensome process for recovery of association expenses. 

¶ 26 In sum, neither the Condominium Property Act nor the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act 

required North Spaulding to prove as an element of recovery that the litigation was authorized 

by a board vote at a properly noticed meeting open to all unit owners, and based on the record 

before the trial court and on appeal, we will not extend Palm to create any such requirement. 

Here, North Spaulding presented evidence at trial that, as a condominium association, it was 

entitled to possession of Cavanaughs’ unit for unpaid assessments under section 9-102(a)(7) of 

the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act (735 ILCS 5/9-102(a)(7) (West 2014)). North Spaulding 

presented evidence that the Cavanaughs had not paid their assessments since September 1, 

2012, that the Notice and Demand was given and served in accord with sections 9-102 and 

9-104.1 on December 5, 2012, and that the Cavanaughs owed $3204.26. At the close of North 

Spaulding’s case, the Cavanaughs, for the first time in the circuit court, interjected the issue of 

whether the association board voted to bring a forcible action in their section 2-1110 motion 
- 8 - 

for judgment and then failed to develop a coherent argument that North Spaulding was 

required to prove that a vote had been taken as part of its prima facie case. They advance no 

additional argument on appeal. The Cavanaughs’ motion for judgment at the close of North 

Spaulding’s case in chief was properly denied.

¶ 27 Next, the Cavanaughs argue that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their 

motion for a new trial. They argue that the trial court improperly sustained North Spaulding’s 

objections during the Cavanaughs’ cross-examination of O’Connor when North Spaulding 

offered no basis for its objections. The Cavanaughs further claim that the trial court improperly 

admitted the Notice and Demand and North Spaulding’s ledger into evidence without an 

adequate foundation. We address these arguments in turn. 

¶ 28 First, the Cavanaughs argue that the trial court should have sought a basis for North 

Spaulding’s objections during the cross-examination of O’Connor. During trial, the 

Cavanaughs attempted to ask O’Connor questions regarding the requirement that North 

Spaulding send notices of condominium board meetings and whether any such notices were 

sent. North Spaulding objected without stating a basis for the objection, and the trial court 

sustained the objections. The Cavanaughs argue that the basis for the objections is not clear 

from the context of the proceedings and that these questions were “clearly relevant and 

germane to the proceedings, as [they establish] that [O’Connor] could not testify as to whether 

[North Spaulding] had the authority to act.”

¶ 29 North Spaulding argues the Cavanaughs have forfeited this argument by failing to cite any 

authority in support of its contention that the basis of North Spaulding’s objections were not 

apparent from the context of the trial.1 They argue that the objections were clearly related to 

“germaneness” since the issue of whether the condominium board properly noticed and held a 

meeting at which it voted to initiate the forcible action is not germane to the issue of 

possession. 

¶ 30 We review a trial court’s ruling on a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion. 

Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 36 (2003). Also, a trial court’s evidentiary rulings will not be 

overturned absent a clear abuse of discretion. In re Leona W., 228 Ill. 2d 439, 460 (2008). In 

order to warrant reversal of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings, the error must have been 

substantially prejudicial and affected the outcome of the case. Id. A trial court abuses its 

discretion only if it exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores recognized principles of law or if 

no reasonable person would take the position adopted by the court. Alm v. Loyola University 

Medical Center, 373 Ill. App. 3d 1, 4 (2007). 

¶ 31 Although the parties reference Illinois Rule of Evidence 103 (eff. Oct. 15, 2015),2 they fail 

to discuss the more applicable rules of evidence. While North Spaulding refers to 

 

1We note that the Cavanaughs’ sole citation was to our unpublished order in People v. Varela, 2015 

IL App (2d) 121360-U, which was entered pursuant to Rule 23 and which may not be cited as authority 

except under limited circumstances. Those circumstances are not present here, and we therefore 

disregard the citation. 

2

Illinois Rule of Evidence 103 states: 

“(a) Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or 

excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and 
- 9 - 

“germaneness” in its appellee’s brief as the basis for its trial court objections, having reviewed 

the trial transcript, it is clear that North Spaulding’s objections were rooted in relevance. See 

Ill. R. Evid. 401 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011) (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any 

tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the 

action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”). Irrelevant 

evidence is not admissible. Ill. R. Evid. 402 (eff. Jan. 1, 2011). As discussed above, the first 

time that the Cavanaughs asserted their argument regarding the need for a properly-noticed 

board meeting and vote was in their motion for judgment at the close of North Spaulding’s case 

in chief. At trial, O’Connor was called as a witness to establish that North Spaulding was a 

condominium association, that it complied with its notice obligations under the Forcible Entry 

and Detainer Act by sending the Notice and Demand, and to establish the amount owed by the 

Cavanaughs. The trial court acted within its discretion by sustaining North Spaulding’s 

objections to questions about board meetings and votes without seeking a basis for those 

objections because, in context, they were not relevant to any issue being tried, specifically 

whether North Spaulding had established a right to a judgment for possession and unpaid 

assessments. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying that portion of the 

Cavanaughs’ motion for a new trial.

¶ 32 Next, the Cavanaughs raise a similar argument with respect to the trial court sustaining 

objections without seeking a basis for the objection where the Cavanaughs sought to question 

O’Connor regarding certain entries in North Spaulding’s ledger. The Cavanaughs again claim 

that the trial court “excluded testimony that was highly relevant to the proceeding without any 

basis for doing so.” The Cavanaughs claim that this “affected the outcome of the trial, and thus, 

a new trial is appropriate.” The Cavanaughs’ appellant’s brief fails to identify the entries they 

wanted to explore, and they made no offer of proof in this regard. 

¶ 33 The Cavanaughs have forfeited this point by failing to develop any meaningful argument in 

support. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Jan. 1, 2016); see also Housing Authority v. Lyles, 395 Ill. 

App. 3d 1036, 1040 (2009) (finding that failure to properly develop an argument does “not 

merit consideration on appeal and may be rejected for that reason alone”). They made no offer 

of proof that might establish the relevance of their questions and, on appeal, fail to offer any 

explanation as to the significance the entries in the ledger about which they sought to question 

O’Connor. The Cavanaughs argue that the ledger formed North Spaulding’s basis for 

damages, but they fail to develop any argument as to how any of the ledger entries were 

improperly admitted into evidence for the purpose of computing the total amount of North 

Spaulding’s damages. They also fail to direct our attention to the ledger entries about which 

they wanted to question O’Connor. There was no suggestion that any assessments were paid or 

incorrectly credited to the Cavanaughs. There was no suggestion by way of competent 

evidence or an offer of proof that the claimed amount due was excessive. They have therefore 

forfeited their argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion for a 

 

 (1) Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to 

strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not 

apparent from the context; or 

 (2) Offer of Proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the 

evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which 

questions were asked.” Ill. R. Evid. 103(a)(1)-(2) (eff. Oct. 15, 2015). 
- 10 - 

new trial on the basis of having sustained objections to questions about the ledger without a 

basis for those objections. Lyles, 395 Ill. App. 3d at 1040. 

¶ 34 Next, the Cavanaughs argue that the trial court abused its discretion in denying their 

motion for a new trial because the trial court admitted the Notice and Demand and ledger into 

evidence without proper foundations. They argue that O’Connor, who was not employed by 

Westward until October 2013, could not lay the foundation for a document purportedly created 

in 2012, since he is unable to testify that the record was made in the ordinary course of 

business, or that it was made at or near the time of the event or occurrence. 

¶ 35 The Cavanaughs fail to cite to the record on appeal in support of their argument and largely 

fail to cite any case law in support of their argument. Most glaringly, they fail to even mention 

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 236(a) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992) or Illinois Rule of Evidence 803(6) (eff. 

Apr. 26, 2012). These violations are grounds for forfeiture. See Lyles, 395 Ill. App. 3d at 1040. 

However, we understand the Cavanaughs’ argument and find that North Spaulding laid a 

sufficient foundation pursuant to Rule 236(a) and Illinois Rule of Evidence 803(6). 

¶ 36 Rule 236(a) provides that: 

“Any writing or record, whether in the form of any entry in a book or otherwise, made 

as a memorandum or record of any act, transaction, occurrence, or event, shall be 

admissible as evidence of the act, transaction, occurrence, or event, if made in the 

regular course of any business, and if it was the regular course of the business to make 

such a memorandum or record at the time of such an act, transaction, occurrence, or 

event or within a reasonable time thereafter. All other circumstances of the making of 

the writing or record, including lack of personal knowledge by the entrant or maker, 

may be shown to affect its weight, but shall not affect its admissibility. The term 

‘business,’ as used in this rule, includes business, profession, occupation, and calling of 

every kind.” Ill. S. Ct. R. 236(a) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992). 

¶ 37 The Cavanaughs’ argument regarding O’Connor not being employed by Westward at the 

time the Notice and Demand was made and sent does not affect its admissibility but rather goes 

the weight to be given it by the trier of fact. Ill. S. Ct. R. 236(a) (eff. Aug. 1, 1992). Here, 

O’Connor identified the Notice and Demand sent to the Cavanaughs. He testified that it was 

the regular practice of Westward, as agent of North Spaulding, to prepare Notice and Demand 

letters kept in the course of Westward’s regularly conducted business activity made by a 

person with knowledge of or made from information given by a person with knowledge of the 

acts described therein, that the Notice and Demand letters are stored on a computer server, that 

he frequently works with such records, and that he was familiar with Westward’s storage and 

retrieval methods for documents such as the Notice and Demand. He testified that the Notice 

and Demand letter dated December 5, 2012, was a true and accurate copy of the one sent to the 

Cavanaughs, which was created at or near the time of the events described therein, and that it 

was Westward’s procedure to send such notices to all known addresses of the unit owner. He 

identified the Notice and Demand as a true and accurate copy of the one sent to the 

Cavanaughs. This testimony, coupled with the Cavanaughs’ admission that that the document 

was sent to their unit, clearly established that North Spaulding laid an adequate foundation 

under Rule 236(a), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Notice and 

Demand. 

¶ 38 O’Connor also identified Westward’s ledger for the Cavanaughs’ unit. He testified that it 

was made by a person with knowledge or from information transmitted by a person with 
- 11 - 

knowledge of the events, that it was made and updated at or the near the time of the events 

appearing in it, that it was Westward’s regular practice to make such records, and that they 

were kept in the ordinary course of business. He testified that he was familiar with Westward’s 

storage and retrieval procedures and the copy of the ledger he was shown was a true and 

accurate copy of the ledger for the Cavanaughs’ account. Again, this is an adequate foundation 

under Rule 236(a), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the ledger into 

evidence. 

¶ 39 In sum, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Cavanaughs’ motion for 

new trial where the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the Notice and Demand 

or the account ledger into evidence. 

¶ 40 Finally, the Cavanaughs argue that the trial court abused its discretion in granting North 

Spaulding’s petition for attorney fees. They argue that the fees requested by North Spaulding 

are “excessive and improper,” that the fees are not supported by the “documents” tendered to 

the trial court, and that North Spaulding improperly sought over $10,000 in fees in connection 

with the Cavanaughs’ counterclaim and third-party complaint.3

Plaintiff’s argument cites 

virtually no authority in support of the claimed error.

¶ 41 Section 9.2(b) of the Condominium Property Act states that “[a]ny attorneys’ fees incurred 

by [an] Association arising out of default by an unit owner *** shall be added to, and deemed a 

part of, his respective share of the common expense.” 765 ILCS 605/9.2(b) (West 2014). 

Section 9-111 of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act provides: 

“[W]hen [an] action is based upon the failure of an owner of a unit therein to pay when 

due his or her proportionate share of the common expenses of the property, or of any 

other expenses lawfully agreed upon or the amount of any unpaid fine, and if the court 

finds that the expenses or fines are due to the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be entitled to 

the possession of the whole of the premises claimed, and judgment in favor of the 

plaintiff shall be entered for the possession thereof and for the amount found due by the 

court including interest and late charges, if any, together with reasonable attorney’s 

fees, if any, and for the plaintiff’s costs. The awarding of reasonable attorney’s fees 

shall be pursuant to the standards set forth in subsection (b) of this Section 9-111.” 735 

ILCS 5/9-111(a) (West 2014). 

Section 9-111(b) requires the trial court, when determining reasonable attorney fees, to 

consider: “(i) the time expended by the attorney; (ii) the reasonableness of the hourly rate for 

the work performed; (iii) the reasonableness of the amount of time expended for the work 

performed; and (iv) the amount in controversy and the nature of the action.” 735 ILCS 

5/9-111(b) (West 2014). 

¶ 42 We begin by noting that the Cavanaughs assert, without citation to case law and without 

developing any legal argument, that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding North 

Spaulding attorney fees incurred in defending the Cavanaughs’ counterclaims. A plain reading 

of section 9.2 of the Condominium Property Act shows that “[a]ny attorneys’ fees incurred by 

[an] Association arising out of a default by [a] unit owner” become part of unit owners’ 

respective share of the common expense. (Emphases added.) 765 ILCS 605/9.2(b) (West 

 

3North Spaulding and Westward were represented by the same attorneys in the trial court, and in 

this court, both in this case and in case No. 1-15-3387, although Westward is not actually a party to this 

appeal. 
- 12 - 

2014). The statute does not expressly exclude fees incurred as a result of defending against a 

unit owners’ counterclaims, and we see no reason why the remaining unit owners should bear 

the cost of defending a counterclaim raised in an action brought of their behalf against a unit 

owner that purportedly is not meeting its obligation imposed by the Declaration. Similarly, 

section 9-111 of the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act provides that the condominium 

association may recover reasonable attorney fees. 735 ILCS 5/9-111(a) (West 2014). Again, 

the recoverable fees are not expressly limited to those incurred prosecuting the forcible action, 

but includes fees incurred by an association based on a unit owner’s failure to pay. The 

Cavanaughs have failed to establish that the fees incurred by North Spaulding in defense of the 

Cavanaughs’ counterclaim are not recoverable. We find that, under the plain and ordinary 

language of the applicable statutes, North Spaulding may recover reasonable attorney fees for 

defending against the Cavanaughs’ counterclaim. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in 

awarding North Spaulding attorney fees in connection with the Cavanaughs’ counterclaim.

¶ 43 The Cavanaughs also argue that North Spaulding’s fees were “excessive” since North 

Spaulding incurred almost $3000 in legal fees before obtaining service of process on the 

Cavanaughs and expended significant time responding to the Cavanaughs’ emergency motion 

for substitution of judge as a matter of right. The legislature is aware of the various provisions 

available to defendants in civil litigation, and it chose not to afford any limitation other than 

“reasonableness” on a condominium association’s ability to recover attorney fees. The 

Cavanaughs present virtually no argument demonstrating how the trial court abused its 

discretion, and merely urge us to agree that the fees were excessive. Whether the fees were 

excessive in light of the nature of the work performed is a matter within the trial court’s 

discretion. See 735 ILCS 5/9-111(b) (West 2014). We have reviewed the fee petition filed with 

the trial court, which was supported by detailed time records, and we are satisfied the fees 

sought are reasonable, particularly given the nature of the defense advanced by the 

Cavanaughs. Furthermore, the record on appeal does not include a transcript of the hearing on 

North Spaulding’s fee petition, nor have we been provided with a bystander’s report or any 

other report of the proceedings that might shed light on what factors were considered by the 

trial court. Any doubts that arise from the incompleteness of the record on appeal are resolved 

against the appellant, and the absence of the transcript of the hearing on the petition for 

attorney fees leaves us with no basis for holding that the trial court abused its discretion in 

determining the reasonableness of those fees. See Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 

(1984). 

¶ 44 The Cavanaughs raise two final arguments. First, they contend that the trial court abused its 

discretion in granting North Spaulding all of the attorney fees it sought where part of those fees 

appear to have been incurred defending Westward, the third-party defendant. Second, the 

Cavanaughs argue that North Spaulding was granted attorney fees in the amount of 

$23,117.50, when the fee petition sought $22,493.10,4

 and that the trial court awarded $926.23 

in costs, when the documentation attached to the fee petition, according to the Cavanaughs, 

only amounted to $813.83.5

 

4The Cavanaughs allege that the invoices attached to the fee petition only amounted to $27,007.70. 

5We are skeptical of the Cavanaughs’ claim on this point, as they appear to have overlooked $120 

in charges clearly set forth in the invoices. The Cavanaughs’ brief contains a table of charges 

purportedly based on the invoices attached to North Spaulding’s fee petition. The Cavanaughs’ table 
- 13 - 

¶ 45 We agree that North Spaulding did not establish that it was entitled to recover attorney fees 

and costs incurred on behalf of Westward. The plain language of the Condominium Property 

Act and the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act permit a condominium association to recover 

attorney fees and costs “arising out of” and “based on” a unit owners’ failure to pay, but North 

Spaulding points to no statutory provision that expressly permits the condominium association 

to recover fees and costs incurred by a third-party defendant. Neither the Condominium 

Property Act nor the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act contains a “prevailing party” attorney 

fees and costs provision. It is clear from reviewing the invoices attached to the fee petition that 

part of the fees recovered by North Spaulding relate to attorney fees and costs incurred by its 

management company Westward.6 

¶ 46 If a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, then it is clear that an abuse of discretion 

has occurred, as it is always an abuse of discretion to base a decision on an incorrect view of 

the law. Silverberg v. Haji, 2015 IL App (1st) 141321, ¶ 34 (citing People v. Porter-Boens,

2013 IL App (1st) 111074, ¶ 10). Although we lack a report of proceedings and have an 

inadequate basis to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining the 

reasonableness of the requested fees, we are satisfied that North Spaulding’s petition for 

attorney fees and costs clearly includes fees and costs incurred by the third-party defendant 

Westward, which North Spaulding has not established are recoverable. 

¶ 47 We therefore affirm the award of attorney fees to North Spaulding based on the hourly rate 

and time expended on behalf of North Spaulding as presented to and approved by the trial 

court. However, we vacate the trial court’s award of $23,117.50 in attorney fees in favor of 

North Spaulding to the extent that this award includes attorney fees incurred by of Westward in 

its defense of the third-party complaint filed against it. We vacate the trial court’s award of 

$926.23 in costs in favor of North Spaulding and remand for a hearing on North Spaulding’s 

petition for attorney fees. On remand, the trial court should exclude attorney fees and costs 

attributable to Westward’s defense of the third-party complaint, unless the association can cite 

to other statutory authority, and ensure that the attorney fees and costs awarded to North 

Spaulding are properly supported. 

¶ 48 CONCLUSION 

¶ 49 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s order denying the Cavanaughs’ 

section 2-1110 motion for judgment and denying their motion to reconsider, we affirm the trial 

court’s order denying the Cavanaughs’ motion for a new trial, we affirm the award of attorney 

fees and the rate and hours expended on behalf of North Spaulding, we vacate the trial court’s 

order granting attorney fees in favor of North Spaulding to the extent the award includes 

attorney fees incurred by Westward in its defense of the third-party complaint, and remand for 

further proceedings consistent with this order. 

 

includes a line item for “Sheriff Fee for Posting” in the amount of $60. According to North Spaulding’s 

invoices, there were three charges for Sheriff Fee for Posting, at the rate of $60 each. 

6

For example, North Spaulding filed a motion to dismiss the Cavanaughs’ original and first 

amended counterclaim, while Westward filed a motion to dismiss the original and first amended 

third-party complaint. It is also clear that some of the costs itemized include the appearance fee for 

Westward, and costs associated with filing documents on behalf of Westward. 
- 14 - 

¶ 50 Affirmed in part; vacated in part; remanded with instructions.