Condo Association's failure to repair/maintain not relevant in eviction case - according to Ill Supreme Court. - Mark P. Loftus

September 26, 2025

The Illinois Supreme Court recently made life harder for condo owners. In Spanish Court Two Condominium Association v. Carlson, Spanish Court[“the Association”] filed a forcible detainer[i.e. eviction] action against Lisa Carlson who owned a unit in the building. The Association alleged that Carlson hadn’t paid monthly assessments for 6 months. The association wanted her out. Carlson admitted she hadn’t paid the assessments but denied they were owed. Carlson maintained that the roof hadn’t been properly maintained, which caused damage in her unit. Additionally, Carlson, alleged that while investigating a leak the Association had ruined one of her toilets – and never replaced it. As a result, Carlson felt[with some justification] that the Association had breached its maintenance responsibilities – so she wasn’t going to assessments.

In evictions actions under the Forcible Entry and Detainer Act, 735 ILCS 5/9-101, only matters “germane” to possession and or amounts owed may be considered. So the Association moved to strike Carlson’s defenses and sever her claims – on the grounds they were not “germane”. The trial court agreed and struck the defenses and severed the other claims for assignment to another judge. Then the trial court awarded possession of the unit and a money judgment to the Association.

Carlson appealed the trial court ruling on her defenses. On appeal, the Appellate Court ruled that a condo owner is permitted to withhold assessments if the association isn’t maintaining the common areas. The Appellate Court then kicked the case back down to the trial court. The Association then appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court – solely on the issue of whether a failure to maintain or repair common elements is germane in an eviction action against a condo owner who didn’t pay his or her assessments. Seems pretty simple. Assessments pay, in part anyway, for common area upkeep. If the association isn’t maintaining those areas, why should a condo owner keep paying?

The Supreme Court however, didn’t see it quite that way. The Court looked closely at the Illinois Condominium Act and decided that there are important differences between tenants and condo owners. For example when a tenant is evicted, that tenant no longer has any possessory right. But an evicted condo owner is still an owner – and still has to pay the monthly tab. And under the Act, a condo’s owner’s duty to pay assessments is NOT contingent upon maintenance of the common areas. Huh?

Bottom line? Carlson was not allowed to assert the Association’s failure to keep the place up as a defense in the eviction case. The failure of an association to maintain common areas is not a “germane” issue in an eviction case. Again, not a very good decision for condo owners.

Red Tesla sedan driving on a road.
September 26, 2025
According to online reports, Tesla ignored a $60 million dollar settlement overture in the wrongful death case that ultimately resulted in a $242 million dollar jury verdict against the car maker. The lawsuit grew out of 2019 crash where a Tesla Model S with Autopilot engaged, plowed through a Florida intersection and crashed into a Chevy Tahoe. Neima Benavides Leon and her boyfriend, Dillon Angulo were standing near the Tahoe when the Tesla crashed into it. Leon was killed and Angulo suffered serious injuries. A lawsuit was filed against Tesla, asserting that although the Autopilot feature was engaged, the vehicle did not brake. Florida law permits a monetary demand to be issued before trial. If the defendant fails to accept the demand within 30 days it is considered rejected. If the plaintiff then goes to trial and secures a verdict 25% greater than the offer, the defendant is on the hook for plaintiff’s investigative expenses and attorneys’ fees. Tesla is appealing the jury verdict, citing “substantial errors of law and irregularities at trial.”.
Johnson's baby powder container, white bottle, blue text, red seal, 400g.
September 26, 2025
This important ruling got kind of lost in the news cycle. A couple weeks ago, the United States Supreme Court refused to vacate a $2.2 billion dollar ovarian cancer verdict against Johnson & Johnson[“J & J”]. The verdict was originally returned by a Missouri jury in 2018 on behalf of 22 women. The original verdict was actually $4.7 billion but a Missouri Appellate Court reduced the award to $2 billion. Each of the women claimed that there was asbestos and asbestos-laced talc in J & J talcum powder products they used, and they developed ovarian cancer as a result. Asbestos is known to cause cancer. Talc, in its raw form is often found in close proximity to naturally occurring asbestos. When J & J mined talc, that talc sometimes contained asbestos. And that asbestos sometimes found its way into J & J personal hygiene products. [In 2019, J & J recalled 33,000 bottles of J & J products after FDA testing found asbestos in test samples]. J & J, has known of the risk of asbestos contamination in talc products since the 1970’s. Some 21,000 plus ovarian cancer cases are pending against J & J throughout the United States.
Movie poster for
September 26, 2025
Reports today say that DuPont and the State of New Jersey have reached a $2 Billion dollar settlement arising out of DuPont’s release of “forever chemicals” into soil, wetlands and other areas in New Jersey – and then forgetting to clean up the mess they made. The settlement with DuPont is reportedly the largest environmental settlement ever obtained by a state. “Forever chemicals” – also known as PFAS(referring to per and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are man-made chemicals that are used in an extensive variety of products as they are both water and grease-resistant. The chemicals are linked to litany of health problems, including increased risk of certain cancers(kidney, testicular and breast) liver damage, thyroid issues and reproductive problems(such as decreased fertility, low birthweight and developmental problems). NJ.Com is reporting that one of the sites where DuPont created munitions created such significant contamination in the environment that over 300 homes required filters to prevent toxic chemicals from seeping into their homes. The settlement terms provide that DuPont will spend $875 millions cleaning up the contamination and set aside another $125 million to cover other damages that may arise. Additionally, DuPont will also set p a $1.2 billion funding source and reserve fund of $475 million to ensure that even if the company fails to make payments, or goes bankrupt, public funds will not be used. For a stark introduction into the nature of PFAS, check out Dark Waters, a compelling and criminally underrated movie based on the decades old fight waged by attorney Robert Bilott against DuPont for contaminating West Virginia rural communities.