{ "id": 4291621, "name": "THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELAINE LYLES et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Housing Authority v. Lyles", "decision_date": "2009-11-20", "docket_number": "No. 4\u201409\u20140106", "first_page": "1036", "last_page": "1040", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "395 Ill. App. 3d 1036" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "781 N.E.2d 372", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "385" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "335 Ill. App. 3d 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 637119 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "409" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/335/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "826 N.E.2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "522", "parenthetical": "\"bare contentions that fail to cite any authority do not merit consideration on appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3749835 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "17", "parenthetical": "\"bare contentions that fail to cite any authority do not merit consideration on appeal\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/356/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 F.3d 699", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 11545469 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "702" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/184/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "823 N.E.2d 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 Ill. 2d 11", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 8450488 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/214/0011-01" ] }, { "cite": "736 N.E.2d 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "154" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 Ill. App. 3d 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1096615 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "349" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/316/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 N.E.2d 881", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "885" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 Ill. App. 2d 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5235715 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-2d/33/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "597 N.E.2d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "625", "parenthetical": "\"courts must look to the lease 'as a whole' and the spirit of the agreement between the parties\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 Ill. 2d 314", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5599619 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "320", "parenthetical": "\"courts must look to the lease 'as a whole' and the spirit of the agreement between the parties\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/149/0314-01" ] }, { "cite": "653 N.E.2d 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "836" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 Ill. App. 3d 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 291688 ], "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/274/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 N.E.2d 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "596-97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "50 Ill. App. 3d 271", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5641258 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "273" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/50/0271-01" ] }, { "cite": "716 N.E.2d 1256", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1260" }, { "page": "1260" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 Ill. App. 3d 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 173575 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" }, { "page": "70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/307/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "839 N.E.2d 1083", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1085" }, { "page": "1085" }, { "page": "1085" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "362 Ill. App. 3d 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4261328 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "641-42" }, { "page": "642" }, { "page": "641" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/362/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "739 N.E.2d 1263", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1271" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 Ill. 2d 560", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 963681 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/193/0560-01" ] }, { "cite": "632 N.E.2d 80", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "85" }, { "page": "85" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 Ill. App. 3d 965", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2869612 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "971" }, { "page": "971" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/259/0965-01" ] }, { "cite": "807 N.E.2d 1068", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1074" }, { "page": "1074" }, { "page": "1074" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "347 Ill. App. 3d 855", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3950045 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861-62" }, { "page": "861" }, { "page": "861" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/347/0855-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 621, "char_count": 9885, "ocr_confidence": 0.778, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.105550113451474e-07, "percentile": 0.5694393765814146 }, "sha256": "41aef384293f71507db8791de8fed64292da5d92f6f65372c9ab73f8ef5069cb", "simhash": "1:330fb8b4bfefbf67", "word_count": 1650 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:58:02.073967+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELAINE LYLES et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFollowing a bench trial in this tenant-landlord dispute, judgment was entered in favor of the tenant, defendant Elaine Lyles. Thereafter, the court awarded $5,089.50 in attorney fees to defendant and $145 in court costs.\nOn appeal, landlord plaintiff Housing Authority of Champaign County, an Illinois municipal corporation, challenges the award of attorney fees and court costs to defendant. We affirm in part and reverse in part.\nThe record shows that plaintiff and defendant entered into a written lease agreement on April 24, 2003, for an apartment at 108 West Washington in Champaign. The lease provided for an annual review on April 1, 2004. Plaintiff became a month-to-month tenant, unless terminated.\nOn May 30, 2008, plaintiff filed a complaint in forcible entry and detainer alleging that defendant breached the terms of the lease \u201cas a result of keeping her unit in an unsanitary and unsafe condition.\u201d Plaintiff sought possession of the premises, \u201choldover rent, and attorney! ] fees and costs\u201d pursuant to the lease. In support thereof, plaintiff attached a 30-day notice to terminate tenancy, dated April 4, 2008.\nAt a bench trial on July 25, 2008, the parties stipulated to the admission of 23 exhibits. The exhibits are not contained in the record on appeal.\nFollowing the close of plaintiffs case in chief, the trial court sua sponte expressed concern that it did not have any proof that defendant was served the notice terminating tenancy. The court continued the matter to \u201callow counsel to present any authority that they may have which would allow the plaintiff to proceed without having actual proof of service of the 30-day notice.\u201d\nOn August 15, 2008, the trial court entered judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff. The court found (1) no evidence that defendant \u201cconsciously avoided receiving the notice\u201d and (2) strict compliance under section 9 \u2014 211 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/9 \u2014 211 (West 2006)) was required.\nOn September 10, 2008, defendant filed a petition for attorney fees and costs pursuant to section 3 of the lease, which provides: \u201cIn the event one party to this lease defaults in fulfilling any of the provisions of this lease, the non[ ]defaulting party may recover all costs and reasonable attorney[ ] fees incurred in enforcing this lease, whether or not suit shall be required.\u201d\nFollowing hearings on the fee petition, the trial court found plaintiff in default under section 12 of the lease, which provides:\n\u201cAny notice by the Authority to Tenant shall be written and shall be deemed effective if given by delivery in person to any adult Tenant or by mailing such notice by first class United States mail, properly addressed to Tenant at the Unit address with postage paid. Nothing herein shall preclude the Authority from giving additional copies of notices in a different manner if required or permitted under the provisions of state law.\u201d\nThe trial court awarded $5,089.50 in attorney fees to defendant and $145 in court costs.\nOn November 7, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider. The trial court conducted a hearing on the motion and denied it.\nThis appeal followed.\nPlaintiff argues that defendant was not entitled to an award of attorney fees based upon the lease provisions. We agree.\nPlaintiff filed a complaint in forcible entry and detainer. \u201cA forcible entry and detainer action is a limited proceeding that determines the issue of who is entitled to immediate possession.\u201d Avenaim v. Lubecke, 347 Ill. App. 3d 855, 861-62, 807 N.E.2d 1068, 1074 (2004). \u201cForcible entry actions are summary, statutory proceedings, and \u2018[a] court hearing a forcible entry and detainer claim is considered \u201ca court of special and limited jurisdiction.\u201d [Citation.]\u2019 \u201d Avenaim, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 861, 807 N.E.2d at 1074, quoting Yale Tavern, Inc. v. Cosmopolitan National Bank, 259 Ill. App. 3d 965, 971, 632 N.E.2d 80, 85 (1994). \u201c \u2018Matters not germane to the issue of possession may not be litigated in a forcible entry and detainer action.\u2019 \u201d Avenaim, 347 Ill. App. 3d at 861, 807 N.E.2d at 1074, quoting Yale Tavern, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 971, 632 N.E.2d at 85.\nIllinois follows the \u201cAmerican Rule,\u201d which provides that absent statutory authority or a contractual agreement, each party must bear its own attorney fees and costs. Morris B. Chapman & Associates, Ltd. v. Kitzman, 193 Ill. 2d 560, 572, 739 N.E.2d 1263, 1271 (2000); Negro Nest, LLC v. Mid-Northern Management, Inc., 362 Ill. App. 3d 640, 641-42, 839 N.E.2d 1083, 1085 (2005). \u201cStatutes permitting the recovery of costs are in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed.\u201d Negro Nest, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 642, 839 N.E.2d at 1085. Successful litigants cannot recover attorney fees as costs unless expressly authorized by a statute or agreement using specific language. Estate of Downs v. Webster, 307 Ill. App. 3d 65, 70, 716 N.E.2d 1256, 1260 (1999). A statute or contract must allow for attorney fees by specific language, such that one cannot recover if the provision does not specifically state that \u201cattorney fees\u201d are recoverable. See Downs, 307 Ill. App. 3d at 70, 716 N.E.2d at 1260; Qazi v. Ismail, 50 Ill. App. 3d 271, 273, 364 N.E.2d 595, 596-97 (1977).\nUnder Illinois law, a lease is an agreement subject to the law of contracts. American Apartment Management Co. v. Phillips, 274 Ill. App. 3d 556, 559, 653 N.E.2d 834, 836 (1995). Leases should be construed as a whole to ascertain the parties\u2019 intent (see Dix Mutual Insurance Co. v. LaFramboise, 149 Ill. 2d 314, 320, 597 N.E.2d 622, 625 (1992) (\u201ccourts must look to the lease \u2018as a whole\u2019 and the spirit of the agreement between the parties\u201d)), and the words used should be given their plain and generally accepted meaning (Book Production Industries, Inc. v. Blue Star Auto Stores, Inc., 33 Ill. App. 2d 22, 31, 178 N.E.2d 881, 885 (1961)). In instances where the terms of a lease are unambiguous, \u201cthey must be enforced as written, and no court can rewrite a [lease] to provide a better bargain to suit one of the parties.\u201d Owens v. McDermott, Will & Emery, 316 Ill. App. 3d 340, 349, 736 N.E.2d 145, 154 (2000).\nThe construction of a lease is a question of law, and the standard of review is de novo. Negro Nest, 362 Ill. App. 3d at 641, 839 N.E.2d at 1085.\nSection 3 of the lease provides:\n\u201cIn the event one party to this lease defaults in fulfilling any of the provisions of this lease, the non[ ]defaulting party may recover all costs and reasonable attorney! ] fees incurred in enforcing this lease, whether or not suit shall be required.\u201d\nThe American Heritage Dictionary defines \u201cenforce\u201d as \u201c1. To compel observance of or obedience to. 2. To compel. 3. To give force to; reinforce.\u201d American Heritage Dictionary 610 (3d ed. 1992). Black\u2019s Law Dictionary defines \u201cenforce\u201d to mean, \u201cTo put into execution; to cause to take effect; to make effective; as, to enforce a particular law, a writ, a judgment, or the collection of a debt or fine; to compel obedience to.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary 528 (6th ed. 1990).\nApplying these common definitions to the language of the lease, this court finds as a matter of law that the lessor or lessee would be entitled to attorney fees only if that party was suing to compel or make effective the covenants of the lease. In this case, defendant was defending against plaintiffs claim that she breached the terms of the lease \u201cas a result of keeping her unit in an unsanitary and unsafe condition.\u201d Defendant never sued to enforce any covenant of the lease. Defendant was not enforcing anything, but merely defending against the charge that she had breached the lease. We will not \u201c \u2018torture ordinary words until they confess to ambiguity.\u2019 \u201d Hobbs v. Hartford Insurance Co. of the Midwest, 214 Ill. 2d 11, 31, 823 N.E.2d 561, 572 (2005), quoting Western States Insurance Co. v. Wisconsin Wholesale Tire, Inc., 184 F.3d 699, 702 (7th Cir. 1999). Defendant was not entitled to an award of attorney fees in this forcible entry and detainer action.\nPlaintiff also contends that \u201cthe trial court erred in granting defendant\u2019s petition for *** costs.\u201d Plaintiff has failed to cite any authority in support of its contention. Nor does it support its contention with argument. It is a rudimentary rule of appellate practice that an appellant may not make a point merely by stating it without presenting any argument in support. See Girard v. White, 356 Ill. App. 3d 11, 17, 826 N.E.2d 517, 522 (2005) (\u201cbare contentions that fail to cite any authority do not merit consideration on appeal\u201d). Plaintiffs brief also fails to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7)), which provides that the argument section of an appellant\u2019s brief \u201cshall contain the contentions of the appellant and the reasons therefor, with citation of the authorities.\u201d Arguments that do not satisfy Rule 341(h)(7) do not merit consideration on appeal and may be rejected for that reason alone. Prairie Rivers Network v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, 335 Ill. App. 3d 391, 409, 781 N.E.2d 372, 385 (2002). In light of plaintiff\u2019s failure to comply with Rule 341(h)(7), we conclude that plaintiff has forfeited this issue on appeal.\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court\u2019s award of $145 in court costs and reverse that part of the trial court\u2019s order awarding attorney fees to defendant in the amount of $5,089.50.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part.\nMYERSCOUGH and STEIGMANN, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH" } ], "attorneys": [ "Eric E Hanson (argued), of Mahoney, Silverman & Cross, LLC, of Joliet, for appellant.", "Barbara J. Mann (argued), of Nally, Bauer, Feinen & Mann, EC., of Champaign, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CHAMPAIGN COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ELAINE LYLES et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201409\u20140106\nOpinion filed November 20, 2009.\nEric E Hanson (argued), of Mahoney, Silverman & Cross, LLC, of Joliet, for appellant.\nBarbara J. Mann (argued), of Nally, Bauer, Feinen & Mann, EC., of Champaign, for appellees." }, "file_name": "1036-01", "first_page_order": 1052, "last_page_order": 1056 }