1 Plai ntif f Di Iorio moved f

rom the bui

ldi ng an d pla in tif f Guth pas sed away

prior to t he en

d of the lawsui

t, so they were wi thdrawn as pl

ai ntif fs from the case. THIRD DIVISION

May 19, 2010
No. 1-09- 1793 SUZA NNE R IDENOU R an d DA N Mc NA MA RA , ) Appe al fro m the

) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif fs-Appel lees an d Cross- Appell

ants, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) ) CA RL S AN DBUR G VILLAGE No. 7 ) No. 08 CH 21639 COND OMINIUM A SSOCI ATIO N, ) ) Defe ndan t-Appell ant and Cross-Appe ll

ee ) ) (Jul i et Di Iori o and Mary Guth, ) Ho no r ab le ) William O
. Ma ki, Pl ai nti f f s). ) Judge Presidin g.
JU STI CESTE EL E de l i

v er ed th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Thi s appeal

aris es f rom the trial

court ’s grant of parti al

sum ma ry j udgme nt on April 9, 200 9, in favor of p laintiffs, Ju liet DiI or io, Su zanne Rideno ur , D an Mc Namar a and Mar y Gut h,
and aga i ns t def endan t, Carl San dbu rg Vi l l age N o. 7 Cond

omi ni um As soci ati on (A ssoc i ati on), f i ndi ng th at i m prove men ts to li m i ted com mon el em en ts sh al l be ass ess ed on

l y to the un i t owners who ben efi t from such

im provemen ts. Subsequentl

y, on Jun e 19, 2009, the tr ia

l c ourt entered a
sec ond or der , d enying the Asso ciat ion’s mo t ion t o r eco nsider and a ddit ionally fi nding t hat t he A ss oci ati on m ay ac ce ss the ca pi tal res erv esf or re pa i r or re pl ac em en t of the l i m i ted com mon element s in relat ion t o t hos e unit ow ner s’ o wner ship in the Asso ciat ion. Plaint iff s Ride nou r a nd McN am ara 1 f i l ed a c ros s- ap pe al , se ek

i ng rev i ew of the tri al cou rt’ s orde r al

l owi ng the A ss oci ati on1-09-1793

2

to us e a porti on of the res erv esan d a ss es sm en ts f or th e re pa i r of l i m i ted com mon e l em en ts. F or t he r ea so ns t ha t fo llo w, we affir m. BACK GROUND Th e A ss oci

ati on wa s e sta b l i sh ed pu rs ua n t to th e I l l i

n oi s C on dom

i n i um Pro perty A ct (A ct) (765 ILCS 605/1 et se

q. (W es t 200 8)) an

d a n a men de d a nd res tate d “De cl

ara ti on of Condomin

ium Ownershi

p and of Easemen

ts, Rest rictions, Covenants and By -Laws” (D eclar at ion) . T he Asso ciat ion is co mprised of a 6- st or y building with 9 6 unit s, k now n as t he “Ki lm er Hou se,” and a 43-st ory buil din g with 520 units, known as the “Jam es House. ” There is a
com m on g ara gecon ne cti ng the two b ui l di ng s, a nd the y al so sha re c om mon h ea ti ng , v en ti l ati on and air condi

tionin g systems. So metime in 20 00, t he Asso ciat ion ap pr ove d t he r eplac ement of t he windo ws fo r t he Ki lm er House. The project was pai d for from the Ass ociati on’s capi

tal reserves account wi

thout prote st a t a c ost of $75 2,0 00. A ddi

ti ona l l y , th e A ss oci

ati on i nd i ca ted tha t maj or re pa i r wor k on t he Kilmer Ho us e, inc lud ing co nc r et e a nd ba lco nie s, wa s p er fo r med in o t he ryea r s, mo st r ec en t ly i n 2 004 , an

d s ai d re pa i rs we re f un de d s ol el y by the ca pi tal res erv esf un d. I n 2 008 , th e A ss oci

ati on det er mined t hat t he windo ws fo r t he Ja mes Ho use need ed t o be re place d and pr op os ed t hat t he wi n dow repl ac em en t pr oj ec t b e c om

pl ete d i n 20 09 or 2 01 0, a s i

t h ad pr ev i ous l y don e w i th previous repairs. The es

tim ated cost of the Jam

es House wi

ndow replac em

ent project is

$14 mil lion. Subsequen

tly, four uni

t o wners f rom the Ki

lm er House fi

le d a verifi

ed compl ai nt in whi ch t hey so ught a de clara t ion t hat (1 ) t he “James Ho use windo ws a re lim ited co mmon element s,” and1-09-1793

3

(2 ) “t he Asso ciat ion lack s au t hor ity t o a sses s t he co st of t he Ja mes Ho use windo w r eplac ement project as a comm

on expense.” The A ssocia tion f il ed a m ot ion to dismi

ss on the grounds that ther e was no a ctu al and j ust iciable contr over sy between the p art ies because the Asso ciation’s board had not ye

t t aken a f in al vote to execute the project, had n ot voted for or levied a speci al
as se ss men

t on th e A ss oci ati on’ s m em be rs to pa y f or th e p roj ec t, an

d had not s i gned

a c ontr ac t f or th e p roj ec t. Th

e tr i al cou rt d en i ed th e A ss oci

ati on ’s moti on , a

n d th e A ss oci ati on th en f i l ed i ts
an swe r and af f i rm ati ve def en ses . On

Feb ruary 20, 200 9, pl

ai nti f f s f i l ed a m otion f or sum mary j udg men t se ek i ng a d ec l ara ti on th at they , al ong wi th n onp arty K i l mer H ous e u

ni t owners , ca

nn ot be ass essed the cost of lim ited com mon e le me nts that do not ben

efi t t hem . The trial

court granted pl ai nti f f s’ su m mary j udg men t moti on, f

i nd i ng tha t the Ja mesHou se

wi nd owsare l i m i ted com mon el em ents and that any

assess me nt for thei r im provemen t should b e assess ed solel y to the Jam

es House uni t owners wh o ben ef i t from the i m prove men ts. On April 28, 2 009, the Asso ciation filed a motion for clarif ication of t he tr ial

cou rt ’s
su mmar y jud gme nt o r de ro r , alt er na t ive ly, fo ra fin din g p ur su an t t o I llino is S up r eme Co ur t Ru le 304(a). 210 Ill . 2d R. 304(a). On May 5, 2009, t he trial

court ruled that i

ts order of Apri

l 9, 20 09 , wa s a n int er lo cu t o r y o r de rgr an t ing pa r t ial s umma r y jud gme nt an d r eq uir ed pla int iffs t o file
a su pplem en tal sum mary j udgm en t moti on. Pl

ai ntif f s su bs eque ntl y f i l ed a s uppl em en tal sum mary j udg men t moti on a

nd sough t a d ec l ara

ti on th at “ the A ss oci ati on c oul d n ot us e a ny com mon expenses, operating f

unds, reserve accounts or antici pated future assessm

ents f rom any Ki lm er House uni

t o wner to pay i

n an y way , in cl udin g by servi ng as col la teral to secure fi

nan ci ng, f or t he
costs o f repai ri n g or repl ac i n g th e Jam es Hou se wi n dow s. ” T h e A ss oci

ati on f i l ed a m oti on to1-09-1793

4

recon sider th e tri al

court’s order of Ap ri l 9, 2009 , and sough

t entry of j udgm en t in i ts f av or. On June 19, 2009, the t rial court enter ed a final or der which denied the Assoc iation’s motion to reconside

r, required plai

ntif fs to am end thei r complai nt to strike Di

Iorio and Guth as pla in tif fs , and f ound:

“ Th e B oard, s

ub j ec t to th e D ec l ar ati

on , m ay ac ce ss up to 83.3% (subject to verif

ication of the Jam

es House unit owners’ total perc en tag e i n ter es t i n th e A ss oci

ati on , a s ref l ec ted i n Ex h i b i t B of the De cl ara ti on) , of the ca pi tal res erv esto us e f

or re pai r or repl acemen t of the Jam es H ouse wi

ndow s, i nc l udi ng to se cure f i n an ci n g, a n d m ay us e s uc h perc en tag e of mon th l y as se ssmen

ts pur sua nt t o S ect ion 6 .0 1( a) of t he De clara t ion as sec ur ity for any fi nan ci ng f or any s uch repai r or replacem

ent of such

Li mi ted Comm on Elem ents.” Th e A ss oci

ati on f i l ed i ts ti mel y noti ceof appe al on J ul y 9, 2 009 , an

d a n a men de d n oti ceof appeal on Jul y 16, 2009. Plai

ntif fs fi le d a notice of c

ross-appeal on J

uly 17, 2009. DISCUSSION On ap pe al , th e A ss oci

ati on r ai se s th e f ol l owi ng i ss ue s: (1) whether th

e p l ai n l an gua geof the Decl aration requi

res reversal

of the trial

court ’s order; (2) whether the trial court ’s order vio lat es o t he rpr inc iple s o f co nt r ac t ua l an d s t at ut o r y co nst ruc t io n; ( 3) wh et he ran y ambig uit ies in the De cl ara ti on a nd an y con f l i cti ng i nf ere nc esto be dra wn f rom the ev i de nc e re qui

re revers al

of the s um mary j udgm en t; an d (4) wh ethe r an y auth ority ci ted b elow supp orts the g

ran t of su m mary1-09-1793

5

j udgm en t. On cross-appeal , plai

ntif fs Ri denour and McNam

ara contend that the reserves are sub je ct t o t he r equ irement s in the Dec larat ion t hat co st s for lim ited co mmon element s ca n only be assessed to the unit owners benefi tt ed by the li mi ted co mm on elem ents. Su mmary judgment sho uld o nly be grant ed if “t he plea dings, dep os itio ns, a nd ad missions on file, t og et her wit h affidavits , if any, p re sent no g enuine issu e o f mate rial fact and t he moving part y i s entitled to judgment as a m att er of law.” 735 ILCS 5/2 -1005( c) (West 200 6). Whil e use
o f su mmar y jud gme nt is en co ur ag ed und er Illino is law t o aid in t he e xpe dit io us dis po sit io n o f a l aw su i t ( Purt il l v . Hess , 11 1 Il

l . 2d 229 , 24 0 (1 986 )), i

t i s a dra sti c m ea ns of di sp osi ng of l i ti ga ti on and s hou ld be allow ed o nly when the right of t he moving p ar t y is clear a nd fre e fro m do ubt ( McCul lough v . Gall

aher & Spec

k , 25 4 Ill. App. 3d 9 41, 948 (19 93) ; Qua lity Lighting, Inc . v. Be nja min , 227 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 88 0, 883- 84 (19 92)) . Su m mar y j udgm en t i s a pp rop riate

i f a p ar ty
can not esta bl i sh an el em en t of h i s or h er cl

ai m . W i l l ett v . Ce ssna

A i rcraf t Co. , 366 Ill . App. 3d 360, 36 8 (200 6). In appeal s f

rom sum ma ry j udgme nt ruli ngs, we conduct a de novo revi ew. At lan t ic Mut ual I nsur ance Co . v. American Ac ade my of Ort hop aed ic Su rg eo ns , 315 Ill . App. 3d 552, 559 ( 20 00 )
. T he r ev iew ing co ur t mus t co nst rue all e vid en ce st r ict ly ag ain st t he mo va nt an d lib er ally in f av or of th e nonm

ovi ng p arty . W i l l ett , 36 6 Ill. App. 3d at 368 ; Atla ntic M utual , 315 Ill . App. 3d at 559 . O n app eal fro m the e nt ry o f summary judg ment, t he r eviewing c ou rt is not t o ju dge t he st re ngt h of t he evide nce o r w eigh t he cr ede nt ials, cr edibility, and t est imony of o ne de po nent agai ns t anothe

r. McCul lough , 254 Ill . App. 3d at 948. If reasonabl e persons could draw1-09-1793

6

di f f eren t in f eren ces f rom u ndi sputed f acts, s um mary j udgm en t shoul d be den i ed. Atla ntic M utual , 315 Ill . App. 3d at 559. Wh en a controversy

regardin g the righ ts of a condomi

ni um un it owner i n a condom

in ium aris es, the court must exam in e any relev ant provis ions

of the Act (765 ILCS 605/1 et seq . (West 2008) ), and the

Decl aration or b y

l aws , and con strue them

as a wh ole
. La Sa l l e N ati

on al Tru st, NA v. Boa rd o f Di

rect or s of the S tat e Par kway Condo mi nium Ass’n , 327 Ill . App. 3d 93, 96 (20 01) . The A

ct p rov i de s th

at “ ‘[ l ]i m i ted [c] om mon [ e]l em en ts’ mea ns a p orti on of

the com mon el em en ts s o de si gn ate d i n th e dec l ar ati

on as b ei n g r es er v ed f or th e u se of a c er tai n un i t or u n i ts to t he exc lusion o f ot her unit s, includ ing but not lim ited t o ba lconies , t er ra ces , p at ios a nd pa rk ing spa ces or facilities. ” 76 5 I LCS 605 /2 (s) (Wes t 200 8) . T he Act furt her pr ovid es t hat t he
con dom i ni um i ns trum en ts m ay prov i de“ f or th e a ss es sm

en t, i n c onn ec ti on w i th e xp en di ture s f or the l i m i ted com mon el em en ts, of on l y those u ni ts to whi ch the l i m i ted com mon el em en ts are assi gned.” 765 ILCS 605/9(e) (West 2008). T he purpose of perm ittin g the designation of

li mi ted
co mmo n e leme nt s is t o pr ev en t t he o wn er s o f c er t ain un it s fr o m be ing fo r ce d t o pa y a proporti onate s

ha re of mai nten ance e xpe ns es f or am en i tie s f rom w hi ch they deri ve no b en ef i t. Hofmeyer v. Wi

ll ow S hore s Condo mi

nium Ass’n , 309 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 38 0, 384 ( 1999)
. Par agr aph 1 .0 7 o f the Dec larat ion d efines lim ited co mmon element s as “a po rt ion o f the
com m on e l em en ts s o de si gnate d i n th e D ec l ara ti on or on th e Pl at a s b ei ng res erv ed f or th e u se of
a c er tai n Un i t or U n i ts to th e e x cl

us i on of oth er Un i ts. A n y por ti on of th e C om mon Elem en ts wh i ch by the term s of thi s D ec l ara ti on i s c l ea rl y i nte nd ed to serv e e xc l

us i ve l y a c erta i n U ni t or Uni ts (but less than

al l of the Uni ts) or the owner or o wners thereof s hal l b e deem ed a Li mi ted1-09-1793

7

Com m on E l em en t.” P ara gra ph 3.0 2 of the De cl ara ti on f urth er d es cri be s l i m i ted com mon elem ents as “includ[ ing], but not be limi t ed t o, t he fo llowing: (a ) a ny shutter s, awnin

gs, window boxes, doo rsteps, por ches, balconies, patios peri

me ter do ors, windows i

n peri me ter wall s and an

y other appa ratus desi gne d to serve a s i

ngl e Un i t in cl udi ng th ose rea r y ard
ar ea s e nc lo se d c o mple t ely by a br ick wa ll, w hic h is imme dia t ely adjac ent and lea ds t o a Unit ; (b) t he inte rio r su rfac e o f the peri meter wa l l s, ce i l i ngs and f l oors whi ch

def i ne the b ounda

ry pl an esof a U ni t; a nd (c) an y sy stem or com ponen t pa rt th ere of wh i ch serv esa U

ni t excl us i ve l y to the ex ten t tha t su ch sy stem or componen

t part is located outside the bounda ries of a Uni t.” Regardi ng addi tions, al terat ions or im provemen ts to li mi ted comm on el em ents, paragraph 4.10(a) of the Decl

arati on i ndi cates:

“ Th e B oard

may au thor i zean d c ha rge asa C om mon Expens e (or in the cas e of Li mi ted Comm

on Elem ents m ay charge the Un i t Ow ne rs be ne f i t[t]e d th ere

by ) ad di ti ons , al tera ti ons , or im provemen ts to the Comm

on Elem ents. The cost of any

such work t o t he [C]omm

on Elem ents m ay be pai d out of a speci

al
asse ssment . While t he Ho meow ner s’ Asso ciat ion sha ll have the pri mary res pon si bi l i ty to mai nta i n th e C om m un i ty Com mon1-09-1793

8 E leme nt s, in t he ev en t o f t he ir fa ilur e t o do so , t he Ass o cia t io n sh all h av e th e ri gh t to pe rf orm such mai n ten an ce an d b e en ti tl ed to rei m bur sem en t from the H ome owne

rs’ As soci ati on.” Fi nal ly , with respect t o main

tenance, repairs and replacem ent to li mi ted co mm on elem ents, paragrap h 4.06(b)(iii

) of the Declaration pro vides: “All of t he mainte nance , r epa ir and re place ments of t he Limit ed Co mmo n E leme nt s be ne fit [ t ] ing his U nit , in w ho le o rin part, except t o t he ex

tent as ot herwi se di

rected by the Board or as in ot her wise p ro vided he re in shall be per for med by the re spe ct ive Un it Ow ne rbe ne fit [ ed ] t he r eb y. I n a dd it io n, ea ch Un it Ow ne rsha ll be individually resp ons ible for t he r epa ir, maint enanc e and
repl ac em en t of al l door an d w i n dow l ock s a n d h ardw ar e w i

th resp ect to whi

ch eac h U ni t Own er i s en

titl ed to the exc l

usi ve use . A t th e d i scre ti on of th e B oard, t

h e B oard m

ay perf orm , or c au se to be pe rfo rmed , su ch mainte nance , r epa irs and re place ments of t he Limit ed Co mmo n E leme nt s a nd t he co st t he r eo f sh all be as se ss ed in wh ole or in part to Uni

t Own ers b en ef

i t[t]ed there

by * * * .” Turni ng to t he case

at bar, our r eadi

ng of the A

ct and the Decl

aration sh ows no confl

ict bet wee n t he t wo . T he Act pr ovid es, and t he De clara t ion indicat es, t hat all cos t s for t he maint en an ce , r ep air an d r ep lac eme nt o f limit ed co mmo n e leme nt s ma y be a ss es se d t o t he un it
ow ner s bene fitt ed t her eby. H ow ever , p er t he Asso ciat ion, it has been t he pr act ice o f the1-09-1793

9

A ss oci ati on to as se ss al l un i t own er s e qu al l y f or al l repai rs , m ai n ten an ce an d i m pr ov em en ts to l i m i ted com mon are as wi

thout rega

rd to the un

i t owners di rectl y bene f i tted by an y i m prove men ts. The As soci ati on has e

m pl oye d the

sam e prac tic e i n us i ng r ese rve s f or li m i ted com mon are as. Th es e p ra cti

ce s a re i n cor re ct a pp l i ca ti on s of th e A ct a n d th e D ec l ar ati

on , a s c ost s p er

tai n i n g to th e r ep ai r, m ai n ten an ce an d i m pr ov em en t of l i m i ted com mon ar ea s s h oul d b e a ss es se d on

l y to those u ni t owners di rectl y bene f i ttin g f rom a ny suc h i m prove men t. Acc ordi

ngl y , the tri al court pro perly entered par tial s

umm ary j udgment in

fav or o f pl ain tiff s on this basi

s. On th ei r c ros s- appe al , pl

ai n ti f f s c on ten d th at th e r es er v es ar e s ub j ec t to th e r eq

ui re men ts i n the Dec l aration tha

t costs f or li m i ted com mon el em en ts can onl y be ass ess ed to the u

ni t owners ben efi tt ed therefrom . We agree. However, pl ai ntif fs al so contend the Association i s prohibited f rom us i n g 8 3.3 % of

th e e x i sti n g r es er v e f un dsan d u p to 8 3.3 % of

f utu re mon th l y as se ssmen

ts to pay fo r t he r epa ir o f the James H ou se w indo ws o r a s co llater al for financing t he r epa ir o f the wi ndow s. We f

i nd p l ai nti f f s’ argum en t to be f l awed and wi thout m eri t. It i s u nd i sp ute d that the p erc en

tag e of the total month l y as se ssmen

ts c ol l ec ted

on b eh al f of t he Ja mes Ho use unit ow ner s is 83 .3 %, equ al to t heir o wner ship o r member ship in the Ass o cia t io n. Sin ce pa r t o f t he mo nt hly as se ss men t go es int o t he Ass o cia t io n’s r es er ve fun d, it
ne ces sari l y f oll ows the n that the J

am es H ouse u

ni t owners al so own 8 3.3% of

the re serv

e f und
. Bec aus e ex

pen di tures f or li m i ted com mon el em en ts m ay onl y be ass ess ed to those

uni t owners directly benef itted t herefrom, i

t also foll ows t hat the Association may use up to 83.3% of those fu nd s fo rlimit ed co mmo n e leme nt s fo rt he be ne fit o f t he Ja mes Ho us e u nit o wn er s. Ac co r di ng ly, the tri al court correc tly

rul ed th at the Assoc i ati on m ay use up to 83.3% of

the re serv

es a nd f uture1-09-1793

10

mo nt hly as se ss men t s fo rr ep lac eme nt o f t he Ja mes Ho us e w ind o ws in a cc o r da nc e w it h t he ir
ow ner ship in the Asso ciat ion. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reas ons, the judgm ent of the ci

rcuit court o f Cook County i s af fi rmed. Af fi rmed. MUR PHY, P.J ., and QUIN

N, J., c oncu

r.1-09-1793

11 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S – ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Front S heet to b e Attac

hed to E ach C ase) SU ZANN E R ID EN OUR and D AN Mc NAMARA, Plai ntif fs-Appel lees an d Cross- Appell

ants, v. CARL SANDBURG V

ILLAGE No. 7 CONDOMINIUM A SSOCIATION,

Defe ndan t-Appell ant and Cross-Appe ll

ee (Ju liet DiI or io and Mar y Gut h, Pl ai nti f f s). No. 1-09- 1793 Appellate Cour t of Illinois Fir st D istr ict, TH IRD Division May 19, 2010 (Giv e mo nth, da y and y ear)

JU STICE STEELE d

elivered the o

pinion of the co urt: Murph y, P .J., an d Q uinn, J., co ncu r

Lo w er C ou rt and Tria l J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in t he m argi n: Ci rc ui t C our t of Cook Coun ty, C ha nc er y Div. The Ho norable Wi

ll ia m O. Ma ki , Judge Presiding.
Indicate if attorney represe nts APPELLANTS o

r APPELLEES and include attorneys o f co

unsel. Indicate the word NONE if not represe nted. At to rn e ys fo r Plai ntif fs-Appellees Katten & Tem ple LLP an d Cross-

Appella nt s: 542 S. Dearbo rn Stree t, Suite 1060 Chic ago, IL 60605 (Jo hn M. Ge orge, Jr., Mi

tch el l B . Katt en

, and Nan cy A. Tem pl e, of counsel) At to rn e ys fo r De fendant -A ppe llant DLA Pip er LLP (

US) and Cross-Appellee: 203 N. LaSalle Stree t, Suite 1900 Chic ago, IL 60601 (Kenneth L. Schmetterer a nd Daniel J. Brenner, of counsel) Please Use Following Form: Complete TITLE of Case

Docket No. COURT
Opinion Filed

JUSTICES

APPEAL from the Circuit Ct. of Cook County, Chancery Div.

For APPELLANTS

, John Doe, of Chicago. For APPELLEES, Smith and Smith of Chicago, Joseph Brown, (of