1 NOTI CE Decisi on fi led 01 /30/ 08. The textof this dec ision m ay be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petit ion for Re hea ri ng o r th e dispos it ion of

the s ame. NO. 5-06-0626 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

______________

_____________________________________________________________ CU RT M UI R a nd V AL OR IE M UI R, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiffs- Appellees, 

### ) C hr is ti an Co un ty. ) v. ) No. 06-SC-353 ) SCOTT MERA

NO, ) Ho nora ble ) David W. Slater, De fend ant-A ppella nt. ) Judge, presi ding.

__________________________________________________________________________ JUS TIC E W EL CH delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: This is an action brought und er the R esiden tial Rea l Prop erty Disc losure Ac t (the A ct) (765 ILCS 77/1 et seq. (West 2 006)) to reco ver a $10,000 earne st money deposit paid by the plaintiffs, Cu rt M uir a nd V alor ie M uir, t o t he de fend ant, Sc ott M erano , on a c ontrac t to purchase a hou se. "T he pu rpose of the *** Ac t is to pro vide p rospe ctive [ hom e] bu yers with in formati on about material defects [i n the home] know n to the seller ***." Co ugh lin v . Gustafson , 332 Ill . App. 3d 406, 413 (2002). "A prospective buyer may ch oo se to re ly on this in for

ma tion i n dec idin g w heth er an d on wh at ter ms to p urc has e the pro per ty." Provenzale v . Foris ter , 318 Ill. A pp. 3 d 86 9, 87 6 (2 001 ). Section2 0 of t he Act requi res the sell er of res identi al rea l proper ty to complet e a "disclosure docu men t" and deli ver it to the prospecti ve buyer "before t he signi ng of a writt en agreementby the seller and prosp ective buyer." 765 IL CS 7 7/20 (W est 2006 ). The disclosure docu men t is desc rib ed i n section 35 of the A ct. 765 ILC S 77/35 (West 2 006). Section40 of the Act provides that in the event this disc losure docu men t is not d elivere d to the prospect ive buy er unti l aft er the signi ng of a writt en agreement, then upon the recei pt of2

a discl osure document r eveali ng a materi al defect in th e home, the pr ospecti ve buyer has three business days within which to terminate the contrac t and rec eive a full refund of any earnest money deposi t or down payment. 765 I LCS 77/40 (West 2006). Finally, secti on 55 of the Act provi des that

if the sell er fai ls or

refuses to provi de the di sclosur e document pri or to the convey ance of the pr op erty , the bu yer shall ha ve the right to te rmina te the c ontrac t. 765 IL CS 7 7/55 (W est 2006). The parti es had ente red int o a contrac t for t he sale and purchase of a hous e, but the defendanthad fail ed to del iver t o the pla inti ffs the di sclosur e document requi red by secti on 20 of the Act. The plaintiffs made r ep eate d request s for the discl osure document, but the defendantrefused to deliver it . Accordingly, the plainti ffs n otifi ed the de fend ant of their intent to exerc ise t

heir right under

secti on 55 of the Act t o terminate the contrac t and rec eive
a full r efund of thei r $10,000 ear nest money

deposit . The defendant offered t o refund onehalf of the earnestmoney deposi t, but he refused t o refund the full amount. Accordi ngly , the pl ain tif fs br ou gh t th is s m all cla im s a cti on in th e c irc ui t co ur t o f C hr ist ian C ou nt y. The following evidence was adduced at the t rialof this cause. On Septe mber 1, 2005, the parties entered into a w ritten agreeme nt for the pu rc h ase of the subject resi dentia l real prope rty. Th e defenda nt did n ot deliv er the d isclosu re do cum ent to th e plain tiffs prio r to the ir si gning the c ontract . The plaintiff s gave the de fendant an ear nest money

deposit of $10,000. Upon closing, the pla inti ffs were to pay to the de fenda nt the r emai nder of the purchase price. The contract providedthat in the event the pla inti ffs fail ed to cl ose on the sale, the defendant

would refund one-hal f of the ear nest money

deposit, or $5,00 0. One part of the agre ement was that t he plai ntiff

s would occupy

the house for a pay

ment of $500 per
mon th until thei r home in Cali fornia s old. The pl ainti ffs took pos sessi on of the house on September23, 20 05. T he de fend ant ha d still no t delivered the discl osure document a s requ ired by se ction 2 0 of the A ct.3

Afterm ov in g i nt o t he ho us e, t he pl ain tif fs di sc ov er ed w ha t th ey c onsi dered to be severalmate rial defects in the house. On February1, 2006, t he plai ntiff

s sent t he defendant
a l etter ask in g for the di sclosur e document. Thi s request for the di sclosur e document and five subsequent

ones were refused by

the defendant . The plaintiffs moved out of the house and on April 13 delive red to th e defenda nt a letter n otifying h im of their inte nt to term inate the contrac t as pr ovided for in secti on 55 of the Act and as king for t hei r earne st money depo sit back . The defe ndan t offered to re turn one- half of t he deposit

but has at

all times refusedto ret

urn the entire earne st moneydep osit and has n ever delivered the disclosure document requi red by

the Act. No closing dat e had ever been s cheduled for the sal e. At the trial, the defendant maint ained that he was not a "se ller " withi n the meaning of the Actand that

the Act therefore di d not apply to him. Evidence was taken on this poi nt at the trial, and the ci rcuit court found t

hat the defendant was i n f act a se ller

within t he meaning of

the Act. The defendant does not chal lenge the circ uit cour t' s findi ng of fact on app eal. The defendant al so argued at the trial t

hat the pla intiffs c ould not exerc ise t heir right to terminate the contrac t for a fa ilur e to del iver t he discl osure document until ver y near to or at th e time of the cl osing and th at no c losing had b een s ched uled o r wa s prox imate . In its judgmentin favor of t

he plai ntiff

s, ent eredNo vem ber 1 , 2006 , the circu it cour t rejected this argu men t. The circui t court found that

the defendant

was a sell er within t

he meaning of the Ac t, that t

he trans acti on was covered by the Act, and that t

he defendant was r equired by the Act to provide t

he disclosure do cume nt but had failed to do so. T he plaintiffs w ere therefore entitledto term inate the contra ct and receiv e a fu ll refun d of their ea rnest m oney de posit. A cc or di ng ly, the ci rcuit court ent ered a j udgment in favor of the pl ainti ffs and agai nst the defendant in the amount of $10,000 p lus costs. The defendan t appeals. On appeal, the defendant chall enges the circ uit court' s int erpret ation of the Act. The4

defendant argues that

the pla inti ffs' right

to use t he contra ct-t erminat ion remedy c ontaine d in section 55 o f the A ct had not yet ripe ned a nd w as no t availab le until a time "in close pro ximity or jus t pri or to t he time of cl osing. " Because the questi on on appeal i s one of statutoryconstr

uction and purely

a questi on of law, our r eview is de novo

. People v. J ones , 223 Ill. 2d 569 , 580 (20 06)

. We note that thi s is an i ssue of fi rst impression, neithe r the parti es nor ou r o wn
researc h having reve aled any case law addressing t

he issue at bar. Accordingly , we b egi n wit h som e bas ic axioms o f statutory construction. Th e principles gu iding our an alysis are
we ll establ ished. "Our primary object ive is t o ascert ain and gi ve effect to legis lative intent, the surest

and most rel iable indicator of which i s the st atutor y l anguage it self, given its plain and ord inary meaning." People v. Perry , 224 Ill. 2d 312, 32 3 (2007 ). "In determi ning the plain meaning of stat

utory terms, we consider t

he stat ute in its ent iret

y, keeping in mind the subject it addresses and the apparent intent of the l egislature in enacting it. " Perry , 224 Ill. 2d at 323 . "We must not d epart f rom the pla in lang uage of the Ac t by readin g into it exceptions, limitations, or conditi ons that conflict wit h the express legis lative intent. " Town & Country Utilities, Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Board , 225 Ill. 2d 103 , 117 (20 07)

. The defendantargu es that a readin g of the A ct as a w hole re veals a s tatu to ry sc heme of escalating re medi es whi ch b ui ldon o ne anot her . Th e t ime fr ame encompassed by secti on 20 is prior to th e co ntract form ation, an d no reme dy is prov ided for the s eller's failur e to provide the required dis closur e document. Sec tion 40 pr ovides t hat aft er the c ontract formati on, upo n th e rec eipt o f a d isclo sure doc um ent r eve aling a m ateri al de fec t, a prospect ive buyer h as thre e days in w hich to terminate the contrac t and rec eive a full refund of anyearnest

money deposi t. Thus, secti on 40 gives a pr ospecti ve buyer an "out" from the contrac t where the sel ler has fail ed to reve al a material defect pr ior t o the contract f ormation. Section55 provides a finalmethod of avoidi ng a contra ct when the se ller absolut ely

will not5

make the required dis closur es. The defendant argues that the "severe reme dy" con tained in secti on 55 of the Act was intende d to be available to a buy er only "in close proximity or just prior to the p oint at wh ich the sell er convey s the pr operty at cl osing. " He argues, "The logica l inte rp re tati on o f the Act is th at it onlyal lo ws the contract t erminat ion remedy if the disc losu re re por t has not bee n pr ovi ded at the time of c onv eyan ce o f the dee d." We find no support for t he defendant' s int erpret ation in the pla i n language of t he stat ute. The provisi ons of the Act are mandator y. See C urtis Inves tment Firm, Ltd. Par tnersh ip v. Schuch , 321 Il l. App. 3d 1 97, 200 (200 1). U nder the A ct, the se ller is require d to deliver the di sclosur e document pri or to t he signi ng of the contra ct. The purpose of this provisi on is t o provide the pros pecti ve buyer with knowledge of

any ma terial defects in the home equal to that of the sel ler. If the buyer si gns the cont ract wit hout having r eceived the requir ed discl osure document and it i s not del ivered t hereaft er, he may, at any time prior to the clo sing, term inate the contra ct and receiv e a fu ll refun d of any earn est mo ney dep osit. The seller ne ed on ly comp ly with the Ac t and prov ide the disclos ure d ocum ent in o rder to avoid what the defendant characterizes as this "s evere remedy." We find n o ind ic ation i n the A ct that the legislatu re inten ded to allow the selle r to refuse to deliver the di sclosur e document unt il just before the closi ng, the reby holding t

he prospect ive buyer hostage untilthat ti me. The seller is require d to deliver th e disclosure document prior

to the si gning of the contrac t. The buy er shoul d not be hel d hostage by the
se lle r's refus al to comply wit h the Act. If the sell er willnot deliver the di sclosur e document prior to si gning of

the contract, the buy er is free at any time prior

to the c onveyanc e of the deed to term inate the contract and receive a fullrefund of any earnestmoney deposi t paid. A cc or di ng ly, w e a ff

irm th e ju dg m en t o f th e c irc ui t co ur t o f C hr ist ian C ou nt y. For the fore going reas on s, the ju dgm ent of the circ uit cou rt of C hristian C oun ty is hereby affirmed.6

Affirm ed.

GO LD EN HE RSH and C HA PM AN , JJ., concur.NO. 5-06-0626 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ CU RT M UI R a nd V AL OR IE M UI R, ) Appeal from the ) Circui t Court of Plaintiffs- Appellees, 

### ) C hr is ti an Co un ty. ) v. ) No. 06-SC-353 ) SCOTT MERA

NO, ) Ho nora ble ) David W. Slater, De fend ant-A ppella nt. ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion Filed : January 30, 2008

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Ho nor able TH OM AS M . W EL CH , J.

Honorable R ICHA RD P . GOL DEN HER SH, J. Honorable M ELISSA A. CH APM AN , J. Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Kent Gray, 2028 Bates Avenue, P. O. Box 13084, Springfi eld, IL 62791 for Appell ant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Curt Muir, Val orie Muir, P.O. Box 1081, Kincai d, IL 62540 (Pro se ) for Appellees

___________________________________________________________________________________