{
  "id": 5280242,
  "name": "Al Gronek and Theresa Gronek, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norbert Neuman, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gronek v. Neuman",
  "decision_date": "1964-08-31",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 49,402",
  "first_page": "250",
  "last_page": "254",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ill. App. 2d 250"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "151 Ill App 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2634624
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/151/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ill App 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        852720
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/10/0626-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill 96",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2588160
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/16/0096-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 5257,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.587,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41201166554497964
    },
    "sha256": "d584852e76f63dad62d54068bef3759f93da141f6977accc749e1a126dbe05bf",
    "simhash": "1:75f6d94dfd43ba72",
    "word_count": 883
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:06.292848+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "KLUCZYNSKI, J., concurring."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Al Gronek and Theresa Gronek, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norbert Neuman, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ME. JUSTICE BUEMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the conrt.\nThis case is before the court upon an appeal from an order striking plaintiffs\u2019 second amended statement of claim and dismissing the suit. As stated in their amended complaint, plaintiffs seek to recover a month\u2019s rent or damages because of the failure of the defendant-tenant to permit them to show the premises to prospective tenants after notice was given by the defendant that he would vacate the premises in thirty days.\nOn October 1, 1962, defendant, Norbert Neuman, notified bis landlords, A1 Gronek and Theresa Gronek, plaintiffs, that he was terminating his month-to-month tenancy on October 31, 1962. There is no contention by plaintiffs that this notice was inadequate or that the defendant was not within his rights to terminate this month-to-month tenancy by service of a thirty-day notice.\nThe defendant, in his brief, concedes that one of the apparent purposes of a notice to terminate the tenancy is to enable the landlord to find a new tenant. He argues, however, that plaintiffs did not allege any \u201cpositive acts\u201d upon his part to prevent the landlords from finding a new tenant. In addition, he contends that the defendant\u2019s refusal to allow plaintiffs to show his apartment to prospective tenants was wholly within his common law rights as a tenant.\nNo cases cited by counsel are precisely in point and after considerable research we have been unable to find a parallel case. There are, however, certain guidelines which direct us to the decision which we reach.\nFor many years the law of this State has been that a party to a month-to-month tenancy must give one-month notice of his intention to terminate the^ tenancy. Prickett v. Ritter, 16 Ill 96; Eberlein v. Abel, 10 Ill App 626; Bedell v. Clark, 151 Ill App 419. This is judge made law developed to meet social need. It was considered unjust for a landlord to terminate a periodic tenancy without notice, thus forcing his tenant into a hasty vacation of the premises. As for the necessity of the tenant to give notice, thus allowing the landlord to seek a new lessee, it was evidently concluded in the instant case that such a thirty-day notice was required as was shown by the fact that the tenant gave such notice. In order for the landlord to successfully find a new tenant he must be able to advertise and exhibit the premises to prospective lessees. We feel that the month\u2019s notice the law requires would be a meaningless protection, in terms of the lessor, if it did not carry with it the right to reasonably exhibit the premises during that period. Were this not the case, the landlord would suffer a month\u2019s loss in rental since no one would rent the property without the right to first examine the premises.\nThere are numerous cases which hold that a landlord\u2019s invasion of the tenant\u2019s right of possession constitutes a trespass for which the landlord is liable. 51 CJS Landlord and Tenant, sec 319. These cases, however, concern themselves with one or. another type of senseless intrusion by the lessor into the peaceful possession of his lessee. In the case at bar, the lessors asked for a right to enter the premises during the acknowledged last month of the tenancy solely for the purpose of preventing a wasteful break in the rental of the property. We cannot conceive of substantial interference with the tenant\u2019s enjoyment of the premises by his cooperation in permitting the premises to be shown at his convenience.\nWe think an action at law lies for the breach by a tenant of his duty. The burden is on the landlord, however, to prove that the tenant unreasonably refused to permit the landlord to have prospective tenants view the premises. This is the issue to be determined by the trier of the facts. The maximum loss to the landlord would be the rental for the month of November, \u201cif the landlord suffered such a loss.\u201d\nFor the reasons indicated, we are of the opinion that the trial court erred in dismissing the amended complaint and entering judgment for the defendant. Accordingly, its judgment order is reversed and the cause remanded for trial, with, direction that defendant answer, and for such further proceedings as may be consistent with the views herein expressed.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nKLUCZYNSKI, J., concurring.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ME. JUSTICE BUEMAN"
      },
      {
        "text": "MURPHY, P. J.,\ndissenting:\nAbsent any allegation of an agreement, oral or written, whereby the defendant tenant agreed to permit plaintiffs to show the demised premises to prospective tenants, I believe the order of the trial court should be affirmed.\nA tenant under a valid lease, oral or written, is entitled to exclusive possession of the premises against the whole world, including the owner. The tenant is under no obligation to permit the lessor to disturb his possession, enjoyment, and use during his tenancy, by showing the premises to prospective tenants after notice given by the tenant that he would vacate the premises within a given period of time. 51 CJS Landlord and Tenant, \u00a7 \u00a7 308, 311.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "MURPHY, P. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward L. Stepnowski, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "James A. Geraghty, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Al Gronek and Theresa Gronek, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Norbert Neuman, Defendant-Appellee.\nGen. No. 49,402.\nFirst District, First Division.\nAugust 31, 1964.\nEdward L. Stepnowski, of Chicago, for appellants.\nJames A. Geraghty, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0250-01",
  "first_page_order": 262,
  "last_page_order": 266
}