Court Opinion

ID: 9912220
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-21 20:03:26.527412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:04.765194
License: Public Domain

2023 IL App (1st) 221923-U
                                                                                FOURTH DIVISION
                                                                      Order filed December 21, 2023

                                              No. 1-22-1923
 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 DISTRICT
 ______________________________________________________________________________

 CHARLES SPREITZER,                                              )   Appeal from the
                                                                 )   Circuit Court of Cook
                  Plaintiff-Appellee,                            )   County.
                                                                 )
     v.                                                          )   No. 22M1703429
                                                                 )
 JULIANA PAYNE, and                                              )
 ALL UNKNOWN OCCUPANTS,                                          )
                                                                 )
                  Defendants                                     )   Honorable
                                                                 )   Kerrie Maloney Laytin,
 (Juliana Payne, Defendant-Appellant).
                                                                 )   Judge, presiding.

          JUSTICE HOFFMAN delivered the judgment of the court.
          Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Ocasio III concurred in the judgment.

                                                ORDER

¶ 1 Held:        In this joint-action for possession of leased premises and a claim for unpaid rent, we
                 dismissed the defendant’s appeal from the circuit court’s order of possession as moot
                 and affirm the judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $10,175 plus costs, finding that
                 the defendant has forfeited any claim of error.
No. 1-22-1923

¶2     The defendant, Juliana Payne, appeals, pro se, from an order of the circuit court granting

possession of the premises commonly known as 1903 S. Allport Street, Unit 3R, Chicago, Illinois

(the Premises) to the plaintiff, Charles Spreitzer, and a $10,175 judgment against her for unpaid rent

plus costs. For the reasons that follow, we dismiss the defendant’s appeal from the order of

possession and affirm the $10,175 judgment for unpaid rent plus costs.

¶3     On March 8, 2022, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that he was entitled to possession

of the Premises and unpaid rents totaling $1850. Attached to the complaint was copy of a lease

executed in October 2020. The lease was for a period from April 1, 2020, through March 31, 2021,

and further provided that “[i]n the event that Tenant retains possession of the Apartment after the

Ending Date of this Lease, then a new month to month tenancy shall be created under the same terms

and conditions of this Lease.” Also attached to the complaint was a copy of a document entitled

“Landlord’s Five Day Notice” (the Notice). The Notice stated, in part, that if the defendant failed to

pay the rent due in full the lease would be terminated. The Notice also included an affidavit from

Nicholas Bondi averring that on February 16, 2022, he served a copy of the notice on the defendant.

¶4     On April 25, 2022, the defendant filed an appearance, pro se. On August 26, 2022, an

attorney filed an appearance on behalf of the defendant along with an answer to the complaint; an

affirmative defense, stating that the defendant was never served with the Notice; and a counterclaim

for source of income discrimination.

¶5     On November 1, 2022, the circuit court dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim, The

defendant has raised no issue on appeal as to the propriety of that order.

¶6     On December 16, 2022, the trial court conducted a hearing on the plaintiff’s complaint.

Following that hearing, the trial court entered an order of possession of the Premises in favor of the

                                                -2-
No. 1-22-1923

plaintiff, with eviction of the defendant stayed until December 30, 2022, and $10,175 judgment

against the defendant for past due rents plus costs. This appeal followed.

¶7        On appeal, the defendant argues that the trial court erred in entering its order for possession

of the Premises because the required five-day notice was not served on her in accordance with

statutory requirements where the notice was taped to her front door instead of being delivered

personally. In his brief, the plaintiff argues, inter alia, that any claim of error addressed to the order

of possession is moot. We agree.

¶8        An issue is moot where events occur which make it impossible for the appellate court to

grant effectual relief. Sharma v. Zollar, 265 Ill. App. 3d 1022, 1027 (1994). As a general rule, we

will not decide moot issues. See In re Alfred H.H., 233 Ill. 2d 345, 351 (2009). Forcible entry and

detainer actions are limited and distinct proceedings that determine who is entitled to immediate

possession of real property. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Watson, 2012 IL App (3d) 110930, ¶ 14.

When a court can no longer order that the defendant be restored to possession of real property, the

issue becomes moot. 2242 Archer Court, LLC v. Roberts, 2023 IL App (1st) 221655-U, ¶ 15. There

are three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) the public-interest exception; (2) the capable-of-

repetition exception; and (3) the collateral-consequences exception. See In re Rob W., 2021 IL App

(1st) 200149, ¶ 50. The defendant, however, did not file a reply brief and does not address mootness

or argue for the application of any exception to mootness in her opening or supplemental brief.

Accordingly, any argument that an exception to the mootness doctrine applies has been forfeited.

See Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020); Vancura v. Katris, 238 Ill. 2d 352, 369

(2010).

                                                  -3-
No. 1-22-1923

¶9      Here, the plaintiff argues that the defendant relinquished any right of possession because

she vacated the premises. He asserts that the defendant vacated the Premises after January 30, 2023,

and before the sheriff could evict her. The defendant filed no reply brief and has not disputed the

assertion that she vacated the Premises. We agree that it is now impossible to restore the defendant

to possession of the apartment and any issue as to the propriety of the order of possession the issue

is moot. 2242 Archer Court, LLC, 2023 IL App (1st) 221655-U, ¶ 15.

¶ 10   In her brief, the defendant makes no argument challenging the amount of the $10,175

judgment entered against her for unpaid rent. As a consequence, she forfeited any claim of error

addressed to the $10,175 judgment. See Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) (“[p]oints not

argued are forfeited”).

¶ 11   Based on the foregoing analysis, we dismiss as moot the defendant’s appeal of the order of

possession and affirm the judgment for unpaid rent.

¶ 12   Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.

                                                 -4-