Use the form on the right to contact us.
You can edit the text in this area, and change where the contact form on the right submits to, by entering edit mode using the modes on the bottom right.
123 Street Avenue, City Town, 99999
(123) 555-6789
email@address.com
You can set your address, phone number, email and site description in the settings tab.
Link to read me page with more information.
Filtering by Tag: chicago
Governor Pritzker can indicated that he plans to extend Illinois’ eviction moratorium until October 3, 2021. No Executive Order has been issued yet but is expected prior to September 18, 2021.
For years, the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (“CRLTO”) has been the bane of landlords and the joy of tenants within the municipal boundaries of the City of Chicago. The CRLTO provides a host of extremely strong protections for Chicago tenants including, most importantly, a general fee-shifting provision for the prevailing party. This means that tenants who have had their rights violated are normally able to find an attorney willing to take their case when, generally, they may not be able to.
However, despite what proud Chicagoans (including myself) might tell you, Chicago is NOT the only city within Cook County. There are a LOT of people (~2.3 million) and a LOT large municipalities in Cook County (e.g. Elgin, Cicero, Arlington Heights) which have no meaningful tenants rights ordinances.
Well, that has now changed!
A new Cook County Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (Cook County Code Sec. 42-801 et seq.) has officially been adopted and become effective county-wide. This new ordinance vests a host of rights for residential tenants and imposes a litany of duties on residential landlords. While the ordinance largely tracks the CRLTO, there are several important differences from the CRLTO including, inter alia, a limitation to what actions are fee-shifting and less onerous security deposit requirements. A competent public summary of the ordinance’s contents can be found here. To be clear, this new law applies to ALL residential properties within Cook County, except those explicitly excluded and those located in municipalities with their own already adopted landlord-tenant ordinance.
It is hard to overstate the importance and impact of the Cook County Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance on landlord-tenant law in Cook County. For trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
Regards,
SK
The Illinois Supreme Court recently adopted an important new rule applicable to eviction cases filed in the state. The rule requires all eviction plaintiffs to attach certain several important documents to their complaint at its initial filing. The rule is designed, in part, to help pro se tenant-defendants “have access to the relevant information at the outset, rather than having to wait for discovery or trial to understand the nature of the allegations against them, can better understand the basis for the eviction action and be better prepared to assert timely defenses.“
The documents this new rule requires to be attached to evictions complaint are ultimately presented to the court at trial in the vast majority of eviction case. Further, read literally, the current rules of civil procedure could be read to require the attachment of these documents even without the new rule. 735 ILCS 5/2-606. Thus, there is little downside to the Supreme Court’s new rule and a fair number of upsides, including, inter alia, ensuring eviction defendants are aware of what documents will be presented as evidence well in advance of trial, eviction defendants do not waste their time if they lack the proof they will need to prevail at trial, and assisting judges in resolving their eviction cases in a more streamlined and efficient matter. Thus, we view this rule as a pragmatic win for all parties.
For trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
Regards,
Scott Kane
The Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (“CLRTO,” Chi. Mun. Code § 5-12-010 et seq.) is a landmark tenants’ rights ordinance enacted during Harold Washington’s tenure as the city’s mayor in 1986. The CRLTO has an expansive scope making quick summary impossible but can be generally understood as “pro-tenant” legislation that vests rights in the city’s residential tenants not otherwise provided by common law or state statute. If you are curious, the City of Chicago maintains a website with a brief summary and the actual text of the CRLTO here.
The CRLTO has been remarkably contentious since its enactment – tenants generally love it and landlords generally hate it. Despite this, and excepting several small trivial amendments, there has been an unofficial “détente” between the city’s various lobbying groups since the CRLTO’s initial passage. No one wants to touch it for risk of opening the floodgates of amendment which may, ultimately, make things worse from their perspective. As a result, the CRLTO and the general landscape of landlord-tenant legal relations in the city have remained largely unchanged since its enactment.
However, earlier this year three coronavirus-response ordinances were proposed in the Chicago City Council. Each of these ordinance (BRIEFLY summarized infra) facially attempted to amend the CRLTO in one substantive way or another.
The Lawyers’ Committee for Better Housing / Progressive Caucus’ “Just Cause” ordinance (O2020-3449), an expansive re-writing of landlord-tenant law including, inter alia, limiting the reasons a landlord can lawfully evict a tenant to those specifically enumerated by the ordinance and mandating a landlord pay tenants a relocation assistance fee of $10,600 some certain types of evictions.
The Progressive Caucus’ “Rent Relief” ordinance (O2020-2235), a temporarily halting of evictions for nonpayment caused by corona-virus related economic hardship.
Mayor Lightfoot’s “Fair Notice” ordinance (O2020-2862), which, as originally drafted, lengthened the notice period a landlord must give a tenant before not renewing their rental agreement and providing for relocation assistance of $2,500 under some specific circumstances.
Since being introduced, the “Just Cause” ordinance and “Rent Relief” ordinance described above have been sent around the City Council’s various committees for review, hearing, and argument. Not so, for the Mayor’s “Fair Notice” ordinance!
The Mayor’s “Fair Notice” ordinance was passed into law on July 22, 2020 after some extremely important last-minute negotiations and amendments which completely dwarf the importance of the “notice” provisions of the ordinance. Specifically, an amendment which “swapped out” the limited scope relocation fee provision described supra and “swapped in” a one-time tenant “right to cure” a prior rent default by paying all back rent then due as well as the landlord’s accumulated costs (excluding attorneys’ fees) at any time prior to entry of an eviction order. CRLTO § 130(a). This “right to cure” is broadly analogous to the statutory right of reinstatement in Illinois mortgage foreclosure proceedings, though, again, details vary. 735 ILCS 5/15-1602.
I have prosecuted and defended countless eviction actions in Chicago during my practice and, risking immodesty, know a quite a bit about evictions and landlord-tenant law in Chicago generally. So, please believe me when I say that this new tenant “right to cure” is a seismic shift in the practical realities of Chicago evictions. Tenants will now have the option to fix their previous non-payment of rent by ponying up all amounts due plus the landlord’s costs. This will allow the tenant to stay in their home while making the landlord “almost but not completely whole” – remember the landlord is not entitled to attorneys’ fees or interest. Landlords will need to pay sharp attention to this dynamic moving forward and, at the very least, make sure that the court and tenant are updated regularly on the total amount of rent and costs due to avoid being shortchanged should a tenant so elect to cure.
Setting aside the several other massive simultaneous legal changes to landlord-tenant relationships ALSO going on in Illinois – eviction moratorium, etc. – this change alone means we are starting a whole new chapter in Chicago evictions and, if you’ll forgive the shameless self-promotion, it will definitely pay to have a good lawyer on both sides of the case caption.
On that note, for trusted, cost effective, and well-informed legal counsel on this and other landlord-tenant issues, call Cameron & Kane LLC today! (872) 588-0727.
Regards,
Scott Kane
CBS Chicago has a great write up on the status on the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance previously addressed on our firm’s blog / website. Here’s the link with the text below.
CHICAGO (CBS) — Less than a week after advancing an ordinance to require landlords to give long-term tenants more notice before terminating or not renewing their lease, or raising their rent, aldermen on Monday resurrected a proposal that would provide even greater protections for tenants.
The so-called “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance had been sent to the City Council Rules Committee, where legislation opposed by the mayor is typically sent to languish without a vote. But after Mayor Lori Lightfoot said last month she wanted aldermen to debate the proposal, the Rules Committee on Monday sent the measure to the Housing Committee, where it could get a public hearing after the next meeting of the full City Council.
However, the measure could face an uphill battle for passage, as the mayor opposes it, meaning even if a majority of aldermen support the plan, they would need 34 out of 50 votes to override a potential veto.
Chicago currently allows “no-fault” evictions, but the ordinance backed by a group of progressive aldermen seeks to put an end to that.
The “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance would allow landlords to go to court to evict a tenant only if the landlord can establish the tenant has not paid rent, has violated the terms of their lease, or refuses the landlord’s request to renew or extend their lease. A landlord also could seek to evict a tenant so the owner or a close relative (spouse, child, parent, grandparent, sibling or grandchild) can move into the unit as their primary residence for at least 12 months; if the owner plans to sell the unit as a condominium conversion; if significant repairs or renovations are required; or if the owner plans to demolish the unit.
The measure also would require most landlords to provide a $10,600 relocation fee to tenants being forced to move out for repairs, demolition, condo conversion, or to allow the owner or a relative to live there. Owners of buildings with four or fewer units would be required to pay a lower relocation fee under those circumstances, with the fee dependent on the reasons for the eviction, and the median monthly Chicago rent for an apartment with the same number of bedrooms.
In addition, the ordinance would require landlords to give tenants anywhere from 30 days’ to 120 days’ notice before raising their rent:
30 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of up to 5%;60 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of at least 5% but less than 10%;90 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of at least 10% but less than 15%;120 days’ written notice would be required before a rent increase of 15% or more.
If a landlord were to increase a tenant’s rent by 20% or more within 12 months, the renter would be allowed to reject the rent hike, and vacate the premises before the required notice period has ended, and the landlord would be required to provide the tenant with a relocation fee within 14 days of the renter’s rejection.
Any rent increase of 50% or more within 12 months would be deemed “excessive, unconscionable, and against public policy.”
A handful of groups representing landlords and property owners spoke out in opposition to the ordinance Monday before it was sent to the Housing Committee.
Real estate attorney Ebony Lucas said the relocation fees could force landlords to raise rents, because the fees are not tied to the amount of rent paid, whether or not a tenant is current on their rent payments, or the condition of a unit when it is turned back over to the landlord. She said most landlords would struggle to make enough profit in one year to pay for a single $10,600 location fee.
Clint Sabin, with the Neighborhood Building Owners’ Alliance, said many landlords are already struggling to keep their buildings open and pay their own bills during the pandemic, because so many tenants can’t afford to pay their full rent.
“We aren’t asking grocery stores to give away free food, or pharmacies to give away free medication or diapers, but we are asking housing providers to give away free homes,” he said. “Adding a resident’s right to a unit forever, on top of added regulations and burdens such as increased notifications, is risking the ability of our neighborhood housing providers to keep their properties, and increasing the chance they’ll sell them to giant, faceless corporations.”
The ordinance could be called for a hearing at anytime after the next full City Council meeting on Wednesday, although the following City Council meeting won’t happen until September, due to the council’s annual summer break in August.
The provisions of the “Just Cause for Eviction” ordinance go much further to protect tenants than the mayor’s “Fair Notice” ordinance, which was backed by the Housing Committee last week. That ordinance, up for a final vote on Wednesday, would require landlords to give long-term tenants up to four months’ notice before terminating or not renewing their lease, or raising their rent.
Under the mayor’s proposal, landlords would be required to give 60 days’ notice to tenants who have lived in their unit between 6 months and 3 years before ending their lease; 120 days’ notice would be required for tenants who have lived in their home for more than 3 years. The current 30 days’ notice would stay for tenants who have lived in a unit for less than 6 months.
This is the first in a series on recent events in Cook County corruption. Stay tuned for more on Michael Cabonargi, Dan Patlak, Larry Rodgers, Joseph Berrios, and more.
Michael Madigan has been the most powerful man in Illinois for several decades now. He runs both the state legislature and state Democratic party through both (a) his de jure powers as the Chair of the Illinois Democratic Party, Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, and Member of the Illinois House of Representatives (22nd district); and (b) his de facto power as the spider in a seemingly endless web of campaign contributions, patronage appointments, and electioneering. He is, to cop a crude video game metaphor, the “final boss” of machine politics in Illinois and probably the country.
On July 17, 2020, Jon Lausch, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, filed criminal charges against ComEd alleging, inter alia, that the public utility engaged in an expansive bribery scheme to buy influence in the Illinois General Assembly. However, more interesting than the state’s charges are ComEd’s sworn averments that between 2011 and 2019, they did, in fact, bribe Speaker Madigan and his subordinates with “jobs [involving little to no work], vendor subcontracts, and monetary payments […]” to curry his favor in the state house. These averments flatly admit to criminal activity and further agree to pay $200,000,000 and fully cooperate with the government in exchange for dismissal of the charges.
That same day, subpoenas – court orders demanding the production of documents and testimony – were delivered to Speaker Madigan’s office seeking information about his political organization, law firm, and a laundry list of political allies including former alderman, state representative, and precinct captains. Specifically named were Will Cousineau, Frank Clark, Frank Olivo, Ed Moody, Shaw Decremer, Michael Zalewski, Ray Nice, and Eddie Acevedo – all of whom were / are part of Speaker Madigan’s political apparatus.
The entire situation was adeptly summarized by Rich Miller at the Chicago Sun-Times as follows: “One of the most politically powerful entities in this state, ComEd, has basically admitted bribing the most politically powerful person in this state, House Speaker Michael Madigan.” Personally, I would remove the “basically” from that sentence but, hey, that’s just me.
Speaker Madigan’s office responded to the foregoing by (a) categorically denying any wrongdoing in any capacity ever and saying any claims to the contrary are “unfounded;” and (b) downplaying the subpoenas as seeking “among other things, documents related to possible job recommendations.” The former statement is insultingly stupid as it requires it’s audience to believe that when a fifteen billion dollar company admits under oath that they bribed a man for eight years, paid $200,000,000 as contrition for such bribes, and rolled over like a dog to avoid being reamed by the federal government, this is not a good “foundation” for concluding maybe – just maybe – some actual bribery occurred. The latter statement is an obvious mischaracterization as, if you read the subponea – which requests documents on twelve different topics ranging from several disgraced former public officials to ComEd, Walgreen, and Rush medical – and conclude that the document is about “job descriptions,” you need your head examined.
Governor Pritzker - who is, probably, the second most powerful man in Illinois - has stated that if these allegations are true, Speaker Madigan “must resign.” Two other Democratic “Madigan friendly” legislators - Rep. Stephanie Kifowit, D-Oswego and Rep. Kelly Cassidy - joined the Governor in his condemnation and conclusion. While what will come of this is, obviously, quite uncertain, the list of Madigan associates already compromised (Danny Solis, Kevin Quinn, et al.) is so long and the mountain of evidence implicating those remaining Madigan associates is so high, I suspect someone is gonna flip like a flapjack to get out of the griddle and turn on Uncle Mike.
The City of Chicago scheduled several new ordinances and regulations to go into effect on July 1, 2020. These new laws are very important and briefly summarized below. If you would like to speak with a lawyer regarding your rights as an employee or your responsibilities as an employer contact Cameron & Kane LLC today: (872) 588-0727 // info@cameronandkane.com.
Chicago’s Fair Workweek Ordinance (and associated rule) requires employers in certain industries to give certain employees (a) advance notice of their work schedule; (b) provide 1 hour of “predictability pay” for any shift change within 10 days, and (c) the right to decline both (i) previously unscheduled hours and (ii) hours less than 10 hours after the end of the previous day’s shift.
Chicago’s Minimum Wage Ordinance updated the minimum wage to $14.00 an hour for most covered employees. Similarly, the minimum wage for most tipped employees was raised to $8.40 an hour. Additionally, new rules were promulgated which established new notice and bookkeeping requirements.
Chicago’s Paid Sick Leave Ordinance was amended to expand coverage to (a) several categories of employees and (b) all employers with at least one covered employee, regardless of whether the employer has a Chicago worksite or is subject to business license requirements. Additionally, new rules were promulgated which established new notice and bookkeeping requirements.
Chicago’s COVID-19 Anti-Retaliation Ordinance was enacted to bar employers from firing, demoting, or taking any other adverse action against an employee in Chicago for obeying government orders or some qualifying orders of healthcare providers to stay at home, quarantine, or isolate due to COVID-19.
Regards,
SK
I received several calls to submit witness slips in support of the "COVID-19 Emergency and Economic Recovery Renter and Homeowner Protection Act" today.* Curious about the topic, I googled the bill’s title and found a fair number of articles on it. A lot of the reporting on this bill, like the Tribune and The Real Deal articles below, states that the bill would "cancel rent debt" and "suspend mortgage payments."
However, after a little digging, I found that the bill in its current state (SB 3066 House Amendment 003) definitely does NOT do those things, though the substance of the bill as presently proposed is still pretty wild. I'll give a walk through on the bill as proposed - and other proposed legislation - in the days to come. Spoiler warning: statewide total eviction moratorium may be incoming.
To be clear, I don't think that this reporting inaccuracy is "on purpose," as an earlier version of the bill (HB5574 House Amendment 001) DID set out to accomplish these things and most of these articles were published prior to the present amendments. However, this reporting has not been updated / corrected to my knowledge and, as our legislators debate on whether to enact this bill into law, think it's important that people understand, at least in broad strokes, what the bill does and does not do.
Regards,
Scott Kane
* To their credit, Chicago Housing Initiative and United Neighbors of the 35th Ward were both able to accurately describe the bill’s contents as of this morning.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/ct-re-coronavirus-rent-relief-legislation-20200520-6cog3rewubhzjauxbtjzn5zgrm-story.html
https://therealdeal.com/chicago/2020/05/20/illinois-legislators-to-vote-on-massive-rent-mortgage-relief-package-this-week/
The city of Chicago has issued a new grant for means-tested emergency rent and mortgage assistance for those financially impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. As reported by Curbed Chicago:
“The application window is short—between Friday, March 27 to Wednesday, April 1. So, if you need help submit information through an online form. Applicants who are selected will be entered into a lottery and hear back in a few days from the Department of Housing. Specifically for renters, there is an emergency financial assistance in order to prevent homelessness or those who are at risk of eviction.
Specifically for renters, there is an emergency financial assistance in order to prevent homelessness or those who are at risk of eviction. In order to apply, residents must get an application packet from one of the city’s community service centers and mail it in (this process still stands, even with the stay-at-home order). Once approved, the payments will be made directly to the property owner or landlord.”
Those struggling with rent or mortgage obligations may wish to review the standards for assistance and apply.
Regards,
Scott Kane
Federal, state, and local governments – including Chicago – have recently announced several loan programs available to small-businesses negatively impacted by the coronavirus. These loan programs are specifically intended to help small businesses cover (a) employee payroll; (b) fixed debts; and (c) accounts payable. Further, these loans are notable for their generous interest rates / repayment terms. Some pending legislation even raises the possibility for total forgiveness of loans taken through these programs.
Cameron & Kane LLC’s attorneys have been trained on how to apply for these loan programs and is ready to help your small business apply. Competition for these loans will undoubtedly be high, so contact us today to help maximize your business’ chances to receive this vital assistance. 872-588-0727 / info@cameronandkane.com
PLEASE NOTE, while we are able and willing to work to accommodate our clients’ financial situation, this service is NOT free and will require at least partial payment of fees in advance.