Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

356 Ill. App. 3d 405

826 N.E.2d 1064

292 Ill.Dec. 628

Allen v. Lin

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided March 31, 2005

Appellate Court of Illinois · decided 2005-03-31

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently December 2025

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““[T]he city council did indeed intend to except from the requirements of the RLTO owners who live in the same building as the unit of the tenant seeking to invoke the protections afforded by the RLTO. The city council may have based this exception on a belief that if an owner lived in the same building as the tenant(s), there was less likelihood that the building would be in a rundown condition, evincing structural defects or the presence of vermin or other conditions which would negatively impact on the livability of the dwelling units of the tenants. Our holding that each townhouse constitutes a separate building for purposes of the RLTO is completely consistent with this principle.” Allen, 356 Ill. App. 3d at 413-14 , 826 N.E.2d at 1070 (Quinn, J., specially concurring).”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 394 Ill. App. 3d 22 - Berven v. MARQUETTE NAT. BANK & TRUST

Relies on 352 Ill. App. 3d 246 - Hoffman v. Altamore

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2005-03-31

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

JUSTICE QUINN,

¶1specially concurring:

¶2I completely concur with the majority’s holding that the exclusion under section 5 — 12—020(a) of the City of Chicago Residential Landlord and Trust Ordinance (RLTO) does not apply in the instant case. As the majority points out, this is a case of first impression as to how to define the phrase “dwelling units in owner-occupied buildings containing six units or less” and whether the section applies to townhouses. I write to express my belief that the city council did indeed intend to except from the requirements of the RLTO owners who live in the same building as the unit of the tenant seeking to invoke the protections afforded by the RLTO. The city council may have based this exception on a belief that if an owner lived in the same building as the tenant(s), there was less likelihood that the building would be in a rundown condition, evincing structural defects or the presence of vermin or other conditions which would negatively impact on the livability of the dwelling units of the tenants. Our holding that each townhouse constitutes a separate building for purposes of the RLTO is completely consistent with this principle.

¶3I also write separately to point out that we are not deciding whether or not the Security Deposit Return Act (765 ILCS 710/1 (West 2002)) or the Security Deposit Interest Act (765 ILCS 715/1 (West 2002)) apply. These Acts are analyzed in Hoffman v. Altamore, 352 Ill. App. 3d 246 (2004).

/356/illapp3d/405 · .json · Public domain