Distress for Rent: Ivanhoe Shoppes v. Bauspies, 2021 IL App (2d) 200582

Facts: What Happened in Ivanhoe Shoppes v. Bauspies, 2021 IL App (2d) 200582?

The landlord was entitled to seize the exercise equipment and take reasonable steps to prevent the tenants from moving or selling the equipment, but instead changed the locks as a form of unlawful self-help. The tenants did not terminate the lease or abandon the premises of their own accord, and it was only after the landlord changed the locks that the tenants were unable to access the premises and carry on their business. The plaintiff, the landlord, filed suit against defendants, tenants, for entitlement to accelerated rent from them.

Issue: What Question Did the Court Need to Answer?

Is the Plaintiff, the landlord, entitled to accelerated rent from tenants following the change of locks?

Rule: What Do the Laws Say About This Situation?

A landlord's distress remedy provides that the landlord may seize for rent any personal property of the tenant found in the tenant's county of residence. A change of locks is not an option in a landlord's distress remedy, and is in fact a constructive eviction. The constructive eviction deprived the tenant of the enjoyment of the premises and a constructive eviction relieves the tenant of the obligation to pay rent.

Analysis: What Did the Court Decide?

No, the Plaintiff is not entitled to accelerated rent from the tenants following the change of locks because this action exceeded the plaintiff's authority under the distress warrant provisions of the Eviction Act. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.

Conclusion: What Can We Learn from This Case?

When a landlord is seeking a distress remedy, they should always adhere to the rule of the Eviction Act that states that the landlord may seize for rent any personal property of the tenant found in the tenant's county of residence. A change of locks does not follow this rule and cannot be enforced as such.