Failure to Deliver Possession: Stump v. Abraham, 2015 IL App (1st) 143121-U
Facts: What Happened in Stump v. Abraham, 2016 IL App (1st) 153121-U?
- Ms. Stump signed a lease for her apartment on July 22, 2014 for a move-in date of September 1, 2014.
- On August 28, 2014, the landlord called Ms. Stump to say that the apartment wouldn't be ready by September 1st.
- On September 1, 2014, Ms. Stump emailed her landlord about the problems that needed fixing before she could move in. These problems included missing blinds, a broken oven, broken light fixtures, a broken kitchen door, broken bathroom doors, a broken deadbolt leading to a common area, disconnected smoke detectors, and the previous tenant's belongings were still there. Ms. Stump said the most important problems was black mold and lack of security.
- On September 2, 2014, Ms. Stump decided to move into a different apartment.
- On September 6, 2014, she sent a letter to her landlord to terminate the lease early, because of the landlord's "failure to deliver possession". This means that Ms. Stump couldn't move into her new apartment when she was supposed to.
Issue: What Question Did the Court Need to Answer?
(b) Failure to Deliver Possession. If the landlord fails to deliver possession of the dwelling unit to the tenant in compliance with the residential rental agreement or Section 5-12-070, rent for the dwelling unit shall abate until possession is delivered, and the tenant may
(1) Upon written notice to the landlord, terminate the rental agreement and upon termination the landlord shall return all prepaid rent and security; or
(2) Demand performance of the rental agreement by the landlord and, if the tenant elects, maintain an action for possession of the dwelling unit against the landlord or any person wrongfully in possession and recover the damages sustained by him.
If a person's failure to deliver possession is wilful, an aggrieved person may recover from the person withholding possession an amount not more than two months' rent or twice the actual damages sustained by him, whichever is greater.
Rule: What Do the Laws Say About This Situation?
Analysis: What Did the Court Decide?
Yes, the landlord violated Chicago law. The landlord failed to "deliver possession." The court came to this conclusion from Ms. Stump's testimony and photos and Mr. Abraham's failure to deny her testimony.
- The court reasoned that no expert testimony was needed to prove the black substance on the wall was actually black mold. Glasoe v. Trinkle, 107 Ill. 2d 1, 17, 479 N.E.2d 915, 88 Ill. Dec. 895 (1985). Ms. Stump could testify about how the apartment's value decreased because of the problems.
- The landlord breached the implied warranty of habitability. The landlord should have provided a livable and safe environment for their tenant before the lease started.
Conclusion: What Can We Learn from This Case?
The above article provides information about legal issues but is not the same as legal advice. Legal advice is when a lawyer applies the law to your specific situation. The information in this article does not replace the advice or representation of a licensed attorney. Law Center for Better Housing cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information in this article and is not responsible for any consequences that may result from using it. You should consult with a licensed attorney to ensure the information in this article is appropriate for your specific situation. Using the information in this article does not create a relationship between Law Center for Better Housing and you as your attorney.