Court Opinion

ID: 9928772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 22:04:19.759095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:54:54.840203
License: Public Domain

2024 IL App (1st) 230790-U

                                                                             THIRD DIVISION
                                                                               January 31, 2024

                                         No. 1-23-0790

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the
limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                         IN THE
                              APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
                                FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF EDGEWOOD VALLEY                                ) Appeal from the
CONDOMINIUM COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC., an                          ) Circuit Court of
Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation,                                 ) Cook County
                                                                     )
        Plaintiff-Appellee,                                          )
                                                                     )
 v.                                                                  ) No. 2019 CH 11198
                                                                     )
CEDOMIR FILIPOV, TOSHE FILIPOV, VANJA VISI,                          )
VANCHO VESELINOV and KLEMENTINA ANDONOVA,                            ) Honorable
                                                                     ) Caroline K. Moreland,
        Defendants-Appellants.                                       ) Judge, Presiding.
                                                                     )

       JUSTICE D. B. WALKER delivered the judgment of the court.
       Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Van Tine concurred with the judgment.

                                             ORDER

¶1       Held: We affirm the trial court’s judgment granting plaintiff’s request for permanent
injunctive relief where plaintiff had standing to assert its claim and complied with the statute when
initiating this litigation.

¶2     Defendants Cedomir Filipov, Toshe Filipov, Vanja Visi, Vancho Veselinov and

Klementina Andonova appeal the judgment of the trial court granting a permanent injunction in

favor of plaintiff, the Board of the Edgewood Valley Community Association (“EVCA Board”),
No. 1-23-0790

and ordering defendants to replace their nonconforming doors with conforming sliding doors. On

appeal, defendants contend that the trial court erred in its judgment where the EVCA Board 1) did

not have standing to bring its claim against defendants, 2) failed to satisfy the statutory requirement

that a vote to initiate litigation must take place in a meeting open to all members, and 3) did not

conform its pleading to the proofs. Defendants also argue that the trial court should have granted

their motion to reconsider. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶3                                       I. BACKGROUND

¶4     Defendants own units in the Edgewood Valley condominium complex located in

Countryside, Illinois. The complex consists of the “Community Area,” as well as four residential

buildings containing the dwelling units (Buildings A, B, C and D). Both Filipov defendants and

defendants Visi and Veselinov own units in Building A. Defendant Andonova owns a unit in

Building B.

¶5     The Edgewood Valley Condominium Community Association (Community Association)

is an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. The Community Association acts through its EVCA Board,

which consists of an equal representation of delegates from the four residential buildings. Each

building also has its own association, declaration, and board of managers.

¶6     The Community Association was established on March 13, 1973 by recording the

Community Association Declaration (Declaration) in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook

County. The document declared “that the following rights, easements, covenants, restrictions,

conditions, burdens, uses, privileges, charges and liens:

       (1) shall and do exist at all times hereafter among all parties having or acquiring any right,

           title or interest in the Premises which Trustee and Developer hereby subject to this

           Declaration;

                                                 -2-
No. 1-23-0790

       (2) shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each Owner ***; and

       (3) shall run with the land, and each *** portions [sic] of the Premises hereby subjected to

           this Declaration, shall be held, sold and conveyed subject thereto.”

¶7     Relevant to this case, section 8.01 of the Declaration, which pertains to the Community

Area, states that no “exterior addition to or change or alteration” shall be made “unless and until

written plans and specifications *** have been submitted to [the EVCA Board] and approved in

writing as to harmony of external design, color and location in relation to surrounding structures

and topography.” Section 8.02, which applies to “Building Exteriors,” provides that:

       “Each Building and Condominium Association shall be required, at the sole cost and

       expense of the Owners of the Dwelling Units therein, to maintain and keep their respective

       parcels and improvements thereon in good condition and repair. In no event shall the

       exterior of any building on the Premises [be] changed in color, materials or otherwise

       unless such change is approved in writing by the Community Board or the Architectural

       Control Committee. If any Condominium Association shall fail to maintain and repair any

       building exterior, the Community Association, in addition to all other remedies available

       to it hereunder or by law, and without waiving any of said alternative remedies, shall have

       the right *** to enter upon the Common Elements of the Condominium Property and to

       repair, maintain and restore the building exterior and any other improvements thereon. Any

       sums so spent by the Community Association shall be immediately due and payable ***

       by the Owner[s] of such building on demand ***.” (Emphasis added.)

¶8     The declaration of Building A provides that the “Common Elements *** shall include the

land, stairways, entrances and exits, elevators, halls, balconies, patios *** and such component

parts of walls, floors and ceilings as are not located within the Units.” Although the declaration for

                                                -3-
No. 1-23-0790

Building B is not in the record on appeal, filings by the parties indicate that it contains a similar

provision.

¶9     The EVCA Board has the authority, pursuant to section 6.02, to “enforce provisions of this

Declaration and rules made hereunder and to enjoin and seek damages from any Owner for [a]

violation of such provisions or rules.” Section 9.02 provides that “[e]nforcement by the

Community Association *** of the covenants and restrictions contained in this Declaration shall

be had by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons violating or attempting

to violate any such covenant or restriction ***.”

¶ 10   In 2018, members of the EVCA Board inspected the premises for violations of the

Declaration. Specifically, they checked for missing screens in windows and doors, as well as “any

type of safety or sanitary type issues that would need to be addressed.” Shawn Campbell, one of

the EVCA Board members who conducted the inspection, noticed that defendants’ units altered

the windows and replaced the doors on their balconies without EVCA Board approval. The EVCA

Board attempted to discuss the matter with defendants, but the issue remained unresolved.

¶ 11   On July 9, 2019, the EVCA Board held a closed executive meeting with six members in

attendance, including Campbell and defendant Veselinov. A written summary of the meeting

indicated that the EVCA Board met with lawyer Kat Formeller due to a conflict with its current

lawyer, who also represented the association of Building A. Some of the unit owners who had

nonconforming windows and doors resided in Building A. At the meeting, the EVCA Board

explained that certain owners did not want to follow the rules, and it was concerned that the

violations would “tremendously” affect the value of the property. Although the EVCA Board was

“not looking to sue anyone,” it wanted to ensure that everyone followed the rules. Formeller

                                                -4-
No. 1-23-0790

assured them that these are common issues for condominium associations, “but with a sturdy hand

[they] can be resolved in an amicable manner.”

¶ 12   According to the written summary, EVCA Board members asked Veselinov near the end

of the meeting to recuse himself since he was one of the owners in violation of the rules. Without

Veselinov present, a majority of the members voted to retain Formeller as the new attorney and to

“proceed with injunctions.” The EVCA Board discussed the specific violations with Formeller and

informed her that it wanted to work with Veselinov to resolve the matter amicably, even though

he had been uncooperative. Since this issue involved the EVCA Board and Building A, where

Veselinov owned his unit, “[n]o one lawyer can represent both entities, thus [the EVCA Board]

would need to hire” Formeller as its new attorney.

¶ 13   The EVCA Board scheduled a meeting open to all unit owners for July 15, 2019, when the

EVCA Board would “vote on the new lawyer.” Defendants Toshe Filipov, Cedomir Filipov, Visi,

and Veselinov attended the meeting. According to the written summary, the meeting was “quite

unruly, troublesome and disruptive.” EVCA Board member Veselinov and his family “were some

of the most upset owners as they believe[d] the association want[ed] to sue them.” The EVCA

Board explained that it was not “trying to sue anyone.” However, the EVCA Board was also

concerned that the owners’ noncompliance with the rules would affect property values. It wanted

to ensure that everyone followed the Declaration rules and the bylaws. With three “yes” votes, the

EVCA Board voted to retain Formeller as its attorney. Veselinov voted “no.”

¶ 14   On August 15, 2019, the EVCA Board, through Formeller, mailed each defendant a letter

stating that he or she “altered the exterior of the Building” by installing French doors and removing

screens from windows without obtaining consent from the EVCA Board. The letters set forth the

pertinent provisions of section 8.01 and gave defendants 30 days from the date of the letter to

                                                -5-
No. 1-23-0790

comply with the rules. Defendants were warned that if they “fail or refuse to comply with this

letter within the time provided herein, [the EVCA Board] will have no choice but to take legal

action to enforce the provisions of the Common Ground Declaration pursuant to Article 8.02.”

¶ 15   On September 27, 2019, the EVCA Board filed a complaint for injunctive relief against

each defendant. The complaint charged defendants with altering the exterior of their buildings by

installing French doors without EVCA Board approval. In doing so, defendants disrupted “the

uniformity of the doors throughout the Association as all other Units have sliding doors.” The

EVCA Board asserted that it had “an ascertainable right to protect the property and the rights of

property owners and others who reside within the Association and to enforce the covenants

uniformly.” The complaint referenced language in section 8.01 of the Declaration and requested a

“mandatory permanent injunction requiring [each] Defendant to comply with the Declaration and

replace the French doors with sliding doors *** within the specified time period, not to exceed

sixty (60) days.” The complaint also sought attorney fees and costs. The trial court subsequently

granted defendants’ motion to consolidate their cases.

¶ 16   Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and raised three affirmative defenses. First,

they argued that the EVCA Board had no standing to file this claim. Second, they contended that

they did not violate the Declaration. Third, they argued that the EVCA Board failed to vote on this

litigation at a meeting open to all unit owners as required by the Illinois Condominium Property

Act (Act) (765 ILCS 605/1 et seq. (West 2020)).

¶ 17   At trial, Campbell read aloud sections 8.01 and 8.02 of the Declaration. He testified that

external uniformity mattered in their community as reflected by these provisions. Campbell stated

that when the EVCA Board voted to retain Formeller, they voted to give their new attorney “broad

strokes to handle this and all other violations. To handle it to the letter of the law in any way that

                                                -6-
No. 1-23-0790

they needed to.” Campbell testified that the meeting was unruly because “the directors from

Building A and Building B were also in receipt of the violations.” Every meeting since has been

“disruptive, unruly, and just basically outrageous.” Campbell stated that the EVCA Board did not

vote specifically on whether to file the lawsuits against defendants because “it was not necessary.

The original vote granted [Formeller] a broad stroke to handle our legal affairs for us in any way

that [she sees] fit.”

¶ 18    Toshe Filipov and Veselinov testified for the defense. Both stated that the EVCA Board

did not vote to file a claim against them or the other defendants at the July 15, 2019 meeting.

¶ 19    In closing argument, Formeller argued that sections 8.01 and 8.02 of the Declaration clearly

indicate that the Declaration governs both the Community areas and the exterior of buildings on

the premises. In response, defendants’ counsel noted that the EVCA Board only raised section 8.01

in its complaint, and it raised section 8.02 for the first time at trial. Nonetheless, he argued that it

was unclear under section 8.02 whether defendants made an improper change to the buildings’

exterior. Defendants’ counsel further argued that the Act required the EVCA Board to vote on

whether to pursue the present action in an open meeting, but it did not do so.

¶ 20    In rebuttal, Formeller argued that “the declaration needs to be read as a whole” and each

unit owner is “bound by the entire declaration.” Regarding whether the EVCA Board took a proper

vote to proceed with the litigation, she argued that the “vote did occur[,] that it was broad authority

which included the potential litigation.”

¶ 21    In rendering its decision, the trial court stated that the complaints against defendants were

based on violations of sections 8.01 and 8.02 of the Declaration. The court noted language in

section 8.02, which provided that “[i]n no event shall the exterior of any building on the premises

*** change in color, materials, or otherwise.” The court found that the intent of the Declaration

                                                 -7-
No. 1-23-0790

“is to maintain uniformity on all of the buildings,” and that uniformity “applies to the exterior of

the buildings.” It also found that the Declaration requires owners to conform their units to the other

residential units. The trial court thus determined that defendants violated the Declaration.

¶ 22   The trial court also found that the July 15, 2019 EVCA Board meeting to vote on a new

lawyer was “the only meeting regarding the lawsuit.” It noted that section 18.5 of the Act (765

ILCS 605/18.5 (West 2020)) required the EVCA Board to vote on any litigation matters at a

meeting open to any unit owner. Therefore, the issue before the court was “whether the vote to

approve the new legal counsel *** was sufficient to satisfy 18.5.” In ruling that the vote complied

with the Act, the court found that:

       “The board has the authority to enforce the declarations through lawsuits. The board

       properly held a meeting to vote on hiring an attorney to enforce the violations. There was

       a vote to proceed with injunctions as stated in the meeting minutes. Any further meetings

       to discuss litigation were not required. Thus, the board’s decision to file the lawsuit after

       the violation letters [were] sent does not invalidate the lawsuit.”

The trial court granted the permanent injunction because “irreparable harm and inadequate remedy

at law are created when the nonconformity affects the property values of the units,” and “there is

a likelihood of success on the merits.” The court ordered defendants to replace the doors with

conforming doors within 90 days. It also granted the EVCA Board’s request for attorney fees.

¶ 23   Defendants filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the trial court misapplied the Act in

finding that the EVCA Board complied with the requirement to hold open meetings when voting

on litigation matters. Defendants pointed to the court’s ruling, which referenced the written

summary of the closed July 9, 2019 executive meeting. At that meeting, the EVCA Board voted

to proceed with injunctions. Defendants also argued that the trial court improperly granted the

                                                -8-
No. 1-23-0790

EVCA Board relief pursuant to section 8.02 when the complaint only sought relief for violations

of section 8.01.

¶ 24   In considering the motion, the court acknowledged that it mistakenly referenced an exhibit

containing the July 9, 2019 meeting summary but noted that its reasoning pertained to the July 15,

2019 meeting. The court explained that “[a]ny discussion pertaining to proceeding with injunctions

was meant to point out that the July 15, 2019 open meeting gave the attorney carte blanche to

proceed with representation and that no additional open meeting was required to authorize

injunctive actions.”

¶ 25   The court stated that it had referenced sections 8.01 and 8.02 in its original ruling to notify

the parties that it had considered their arguments regarding both provisions. Reading the

Declaration as a whole, the court found that the “intent was to create uniformity and [the EVCA

Board] had authority to enforce that intent.” Therefore, the court granted the EVCA Board’s

requested relief. The trial court subsequently denied defendants’ motion to reconsider.

¶ 26   Defendants filed this appeal.

¶ 27                                      II. ANALYSIS

¶ 28   Defendants first contend that the EVCA Board’s complaint should have been dismissed for

lack of standing. They argue that the EVCA Board lacked standing because under section 8.02 of

the Declaration, its cause of action was against the associations for Buildings A and B, not against

individual unit owners.

¶ 29   The doctrine of standing ensures that only parties with a real interest in the controversy file

claims. Wexler v. Wirtz Corp., 211 Ill. 2d 18, 23 (2004). “A standing challenge focuses on the

party seeking relief—not on the merits of the controversy—and asks whether that party is entitled

to pursue the legal challenge, either in their personal or representative capacity.” In re Estate of

                                                -9-
No. 1-23-0790

Zivin, 2015 IL App (1st) 150606, ¶ 14. Whether the trial court should have dismissed a complaint

for lack of standing is an issue we review de novo. Glisson v. City of Marion, 188 Ill. 2d 211, 220-

21 (1999).

¶ 30   The Act, which governs the affairs of Illinois condominium associations, addresses the

EVCA Board’s standing to pursue claims. See Poulet v. H.F.O., L.L.C., 353 Ill. App. 3d 82, 90

(2004). Section 9.1(b) states that the “EVCA Board of managers shall have standing and capacity

to act in a representative capacity in relation to matters involving the common elements or more

than one unit, on behalf of the unit owners, as their interests may appear.” 765 ILCS 605/9.1(b)

(West 2020). This provision makes clear that “the boards of condominium associations have

standing to sue on all matters that affect more than one unit.” Poulet, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 90.

¶ 31   As the trial court found, sections 8.01 and 8.02 of the Declaration clearly evince an intent

to maintain uniformity regarding the exterior of buildings on the premises. The EVCA Board’s

complaint asserted claims against defendant unit owners for installing nonconforming doors, in

violation of the Declaration, so that “the property and the rights of property owners and others who

reside within the Association” may be protected. We find that the EVCA Board had standing under

the Act to pursue, on behalf of all unit owners, an injunction to enforce defendants’ compliance

with the Declaration. See Henderson Square Condominium Association v. LAB Townhomes, LLC,

2015 IL 118139, ¶ 75.

¶ 32   The EVCA Board also had standing to pursue its claim against defendants under the

provisions of the Declaration. Section 6.02(g) provides that the EVCA Board has the authority to

“enforce provisions of this Declaration and rules made hereunder and to enjoin and seek damages

from any Owner for [a] violation of such provisions or rules.” Furthermore, section 9.02 provides

that “[e]nforcement by the Community Association *** of the covenants and restrictions contained

                                               - 10 -
No. 1-23-0790

in this Declaration shall be had by any proceeding at law or in equity against any person or persons

violating or attempting to violate any such covenant or restriction.” Although section 8.02 specifies

a remedy available to the EVCA Board when unit owners make unapproved changes to the

building exterior, the EVCA Board’s right to pursue that remedy is “in addition to all other

remedies available to it hereunder or by law, and without waiving any of said alternative

remedies.” Accordingly, we find that the EVCA Board had standing to pursue these claims.

¶ 33   Defendants next contend that the EVCA Board violated section 18.5 of the Act when it

failed to vote on whether to initiate the present litigation at a meeting open to all unit owners. The

trial court determined that the EVCA Board did not violate the Act because it held an open meeting

to vote on hiring attorney Formeller to enforce the violations. It found that the Act did not require

“[a]ny further meetings to discuss litigation.”

¶ 34   “Condominiums are creatures of statute and, thus, any action taken on behalf of the

condominium must be authorized by statute.” Board of Directors of 175 E. Delaware Place

Homeowners Association v. Hinojosa, 287 Ill. App. 3d 886, 889 (1997). When construing a statute,

courts must ascertain and give effect to the underlying legislative intent. Channon v. Westward

Management, Inc., 2022 IL 128040, ¶ 17. “The most reliable indicator of legislative intent is the

statutory language, given its plain and ordinary meaning.” V & T Investment Corporation v. West

Columbia Place Condominium Association, 2018 IL App (1st) 170436, ¶ 22. We review the trial

court’s interpretation of the Act de novo. Channon, 2022 IL 128040, ¶ 17.

¶ 35   Section 18.5 of the Act provides, in relevant part, that:

       “(4) Meetings of the board of the master association shall be open to any unit owner in a

       condominium subject to the authority of the board of the master association, except for the

       portion of any meeting held:

                                                  - 11 -
No. 1-23-0790

       (A) to discuss litigation when an action against or on behalf of the particular master

       association has been filed and is pending in a court or administrative tribunal, or when the

       board of the master association finds that such an action is probable or imminent[.]

                                              ***

       Any vote on these matters shall be taken at a meeting or portion thereof open to any unit

       owner of a condominium subject to the authority of the master association.” (Emphasis

       added.) 765 ILCS 605/18.5(4)(A) (West 2020).

¶ 36   In arguing that the EVCA Board violated this provision, defendants cite Palm v. 2800 Lake

Shore Drive Condominium Association, 2014 IL App (1st) 111290. In Palm, the plaintiff was a

unit owner who filed a complaint against the association board alleging that it violated the Act by

conducting condominium business in meetings closed to unit owners. Id. ¶ 5. The board filed a

motion to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff subsequently filed two amended complaints.

After each amended filing, the board moved to dismiss the amended complaints. Id. ¶¶ 9, 21.

¶ 37   The plaintiff filed a third amended complaint asserting, in part, that the board acted beyond

its legal authority by violating the open meetings requirement of the Act. Id. ¶ 19. The board

answered the complaint and filed four affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Id. ¶ 23. The

counterclaim asserted that the board was entitled to attorney fees and costs because the plaintiff’s

claims were not made in good faith. Id.

¶ 38   The plaintiff filed a motion for “partial declaratory and injunctive summary judgment.”

Id. ¶ 24. He argued, in relevant part, that the board violated the Act by making decisions in closed

meetings on whether to commence or defend the instant litigation. Id. The trial court issued an

order enjoining the board from authorizing or allowing litigation without a board vote in a meeting

open to all unit owners. Id. ¶ 28.

                                               - 12 -
No. 1-23-0790

¶ 39   On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment. We found that whether to pursue

or defend a lawsuit is a question involving the business of the association because such action

requires the expenditure of association funds and resources. Id. ¶ 87. We determined that although

the Act allows the board to discuss litigation matters in closed meetings, “it specifically provides

that the board must vote on any litigation matter at [a] meeting open to all unit owners.” (Emphasis

added.) Id. It was “uncontested that the board never voted on litigation matters, at open meetings

or otherwise.” Id. ¶ 88. We held that the board’s failure to conduct an open vote to defend the

instant litigation violated the condominium’s declaration as well as the Act. Id. ¶ 89.

¶ 40   Palm is distinguishable from the case at bar where the board in Palm never held an open

vote on any litigation matters. Here, the EVCA Board held a closed executive meeting on July 9,

2019 to discuss the issue of owners who installed nonconforming French doors without permission

of the EVCA Board. At that meeting, the EVCA Board discussed retaining Formeller as new legal

counsel to assist in enforcing the condominium rules. The EVCA Board needed a new attorney

because its previous attorney also represented the association of Building A, where some of the

defendants owned units. The EVCA Board’s immediate intent in hiring Formeller was to address

the issue of nonconforming doors and to demand defendants’ compliance with the rules.

¶ 41   On July 15, 2019, the EVCA Board held an open meeting to vote on whether to hire

Formeller as its new attorney. According to Campbell, it was made clear that the vote for Formeller

was “to ensure everyone follows the rules” contained in the Declaration. The EVCA Board’s vote

gave Formeller a “broad stroke to handle our legal affairs for us in any way that [she sees] fit.”

Although the EVCA Board did not vote specifically on whether to initiate litigation against

defendants, those who attended the open meeting understood that Formeller was being retained to

demand defendants’ compliance regarding their nonconforming doors. They further understood a

                                               - 13 -
No. 1-23-0790

complaint could be filed to that end. In fact, four of the defendants attended the July 15 meeting

and, as Campbell testified, the meeting was “quite unruly, troublesome and disruptive.” Defendant

Veselinov and his family “were some of the most upset owners as they believe[d] the association

want[ed] to sue them.” Veselinov was the only EVCA Board member who voted not to retain

Formeller.

¶ 42    The EVCA Board’s vote on Formeller as the new EVCA Board attorney was, in essence,

a vote on whether the EVCA Board should utilize all means available to enforce the association

rules against defendants, including litigation. Otherwise, the EVCA Board would not have needed

a new attorney at that time. As such, the EVCA Board voted on “probable or imminent” litigation

matters at the open July 15, 2019 meeting. See 765 ILCS 605/18.5(4)(A) (West 2020). We agree

with the trial court that the July 15, 2019 meeting satisfied the requirements of section 18.5.

¶ 43    Defendants next contend that the trial court should not have granted judgment in favor of

the EVCA Board based on section 8.02 of the Declaration where its complaint referenced only

section 8.01. Defendants claim they had no notice regarding a section 8.02 violation. They argue

that, in the interests of justice and fairness, the EVCA Board’s complaint should be dismissed with

prejudice because the EVCA Board raised a new legal theory at trial that did not conform to the

pleadings.

¶ 44    First, we disagree that the EVCA Board raised section 8.02 in this matter for the first time

at trial. Section 8.02 provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n no event shall the exterior of any building

on the Premises be changed in color, materials or otherwise unless such change is approved in

writing by the Community EVCA Board or the Architectural Control Committee.” EVCA Board

attorney Formeller’s August 15, 2019 letter stated that each defendant violated the declaration by

installing French doors and removing screens from windows without obtaining consent from the

                                                 - 14 -
No. 1-23-0790

EVCA Board. Defendants were given 30 days from the date of the letter to comply with the rules.

The letter further stated that if defendants did not comply with the terms of the letter, “ [the EVCA

Board] will have no choice but to take legal action to enforce the provisions of the Common

Ground Declaration pursuant to Article 8.02.” Although the complaint did not specifically cite to

section 8.02, it did reference defendants’ improper alteration of the exterior of their residential

building by installing nonconforming French doors. This reference comports with the language in

section 8.02, which is titled “Building Exteriors.” Defendants therefore had ample notice that the

EVCA Board’s claims against them could include a section 8.02 violation.

¶ 45   Moreover, defendants never raised the issue of forfeiture before the trial court. Instead,

defendants’ counsel argued the applicability of section 8.02 at trial. When Formeller asked

Campbell to read section 8.02 aloud and she proceeded to argue thereon, counsel did not object.

Although counsel noted in response that the EVCA Board did not specify a section 8.02 violation

in its complaint, he proceeded to argue on the merits that it was unclear whether defendants made

an unapproved change to the buildings’ exterior under that provision. In denying defendants’

motion to reconsider, the trial court explained that it referenced both section 8.01 and 8.02 in its

original ruling to notify the parties that it had considered their arguments regarding both

provisions.

¶ 46   Even if we presume the EVCA Board improperly asserted a section 8.02 violation for the

first time at trial, a party who acquiesces in the admission of improper evidence cannot complain

that such evidence was prejudicial. Russo v. Corey Steel Co., 2018 IL App (1st) 180467, ¶ 75.

“The rule of invited error or acquiescence is a procedural default sometimes described as estoppel.”

In re Detention of Swope, 213 Ill. 2d 210, 217 (2004). As our supreme court explained, “a party’s

‘active participation in the direction of proceedings * * * goes beyond mere waiver’ such that the

                                               - 15 -
No. 1-23-0790

traditional exceptions to the waiver rule do not apply.” Id. at 218 (quoting People v. Villarreal,

198 Ill. 2d 209, 227 (2001)). Defendants cannot complain of error to which they consented.

¶ 47   On appeal, defendants do not challenge the trial court’s judgment that they violated section

8.02. Since we find that the trial court properly considered defendants’ violation of section 8.02,

we need not address their argument that section 8.01 applies only to the Community Area and thus

cannot be the basis for the trial court’s judgment.

¶ 48   We now address defendants’ contention that the trial court erred in denying their motion

to reconsider. Defendants contend that the trial court misapplied existing law when it ruled in favor

of the EVCA Board. As argument, they only assert that the ruling was inconsistent with Illinois

law and the Declaration “as outlined in Sections 1 through 4 of this Brief.” Since we have found

no error regarding the trial court’s application of the law to those issues, we affirm the denial of

the motion for the reasons already discussed.

¶ 49                                    III. CONCLUSION

¶ 50   For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

¶ 51   Affirmed.

                                                - 16 -