Court Opinion

ID: 9861748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:26:12.395622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:55.444884
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WRIGHT, specially concurring: An action to recover possession of premises is a special statutory remedy that begins with a threshold determination of whether the five-day notice was properly served within the parameters of the statutory requirements. Without the proper service of the written five-day demand to cure the alleged contractual violations, the circuit court could not properly begin to consider the merits of the complaint attempting to invoke the landlord’s statutory ability to terminate the lease, evict the tenant, and seek damages. The author has included a thorough and instructive discussion of warranted concerns related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the validity of the lease itself. I respectfully suggest those issues are not determinative of the outcome of this appeal. I prefer to reserve an analysis of the merits of the complaint for another day since this tenant may no longer be in possession or may be able to remedy any monetary deficiencies if and when a five-day notice is properly served. I specially concur because I agree that this landlord is not entitled to relief under the forcible entry and detainer statute based on the defective notice to the tenant occupying the premises. However, I agree that the circuit court’s decision must be reversed on the basis of defective notice alone. For these reasons I specially concur. SCHMIDT, J., joins in this special concurrence.