Dear usacomplaints.com:
This concerns Judge Dorothy French, the only Dupage County, Illinois judge who hears cases about security deposit returns.
I was in her courtroom because my husband I had initiated a suit against our former landlord about a non-returned security deposit.
The case facts are:
My husband lived on his property for ten years.in we signed our final lease governing residence on that property.
He approached us in June asking if we intended to sign another lease. He also made a written offer to start a new lease on August 1, which was earlier than the original lease termination date.
For a variety of reasons, we still decided to move.
We then put in writing a letter containing a statement about the return of the security deposit. It said, I have read and agree. He signed it.
After inspection of the apartment, he refused to return the deposit, sending two letters citing alleged apartment problems as a reason to withhold security deposit. Due to his refusal to send legible receipts backing up his claims, all of which we considered fraudulent, we sent a demand for payment.
He refused. We filed suit. He counter-claimed.
The initial trial which should have been in late December was rescheduled due to the fact that he supposedly forgot the court date, and moved for a new trial.
At the rescheduled trial, Judge French awarded him the only apartment related expense that he could prove to her satisfaction a leaky toilet - was our legal responsibility. It was pretty strange that our toilet worked perfectly well when we were last in the apartment, but it magically showed a leak some two days later, when the plumber was over. Per French, he got $200.00 from us for that. He didn't supply a picture. His only proof was a plumber who makes a lot of money from him.
The Judge, after a discussion with him, did not consider him legally responsible for his signature on the letter agreeing to return the security deposit. She read the signed letter, but stated, An agreement to end a lease does not end all causes in it unless they are specifically stated. The security deposit was never mentioned in that letter.
Since I figured she missed a very key sentence, I pointed it out.
She replied, I saw that sentence, but didn't consider it clear enough. It needed to say, I, John Doe, will return the security deposit.' The security deposit will be returned, ' does not mean, I will return it'. She read the lease section which showed Doe received security deposit, so she knew he was the only one who could have returned it. Agreeing it would be returned, since it was under his control, is agreeing to take action.
This ruling appeared to me to be a denial of reality. I considered that an incorrect interpretation of the English language, as the sentence, Said security deposit will be returned, can only apply to the one he had in this possession. According to the Thorndike-Barnhardt dictionary: Said, means, Named or mentioned before. An adjective only in legal contexts. Due to that definition, I believed I used said, perfectly appropriately. I will return the security deposit is an unnecessary use of the English language, as it was in his account, and can only be done by him.
However, she ruled in his favor anyway.
Her justification for her ruling: You haven't supplied anything that proves he intended to amend the lease. I don't believe he meant to return the security deposit when he signed that letter, so I don't think he meant to amend the lease.
Several times, she asked him, What were you thinking when you signed that letter? He repeatedly said, I don't remember. Her repeated asking what he was thinking upon signing was permission for him to deny the integrity of what he put in writing, which is the purpose of a written contract. I wondered why we should bother putting things in writing if people are allowed to not remember what they were thinking, when they discuss written instruments in court.
The basis of contract law is: Signatures are to guard against the possibility of later memory problems. I don't think he meant to amend lease is a decision based on trusting the memory of somebody who supplied written proof of difficulty remembering conversations over the unambiguous signature of a written agreement. Signatures are traditionally given more weight in a legal proceeding for that reason. French negated the purpose of a written agreement in giving legal power to memory over signature.
I reminded her: All human memories fail. That is why we have written contracts. You've seen proof that Mr. Doe has memory difficulties, since he misremembered what you said about a court date. He was quite certain in his Motion for a New Trial that he heard correctly, but he was wrong. That same certainty about the wrong perception is present in this situation too.in the previous trial he didn't remember' what he was thinking when he signed that letter. Now he says it had nothing to do with the security deposit.' How could a document containing a statement about a return of a security deposit have nothing to do with a security deposit? His certainty about my motive for writing that letter is another case of a wrong perception. If he can't remember what he was thinking when he signed that letter, how can he remember it had nothing to do with the security deposit?
She stood by her opinion.
For a judge to believe the statement, This had nothing to do with the security deposit, about a sentence that plainly commits to returning a security deposit, affirms the idea that litigants should not speak for themselves, but have their opponents speak for them. This is contrary to the purpose of the small claims court system, and undermines its use and credibility.
Doe's statement to French that the letter had nothing to do with the return of the security deposit was an obviously false statement and against prima facie evidence, and contrary to contract law, as written contracts are for the purpose of preventing either party from later disagreeing with what is written down.
By giving him three chances to lie, she gave greater credence to what Doe felt like admitting in court rather than what he put in writing. This was illogical, as the lawsuit took place due to a lack of trustworthy behavior, so she trusted the behavior, the statements and memory, of the person who caused the lawsuit more than she trusted a written document. Contracts exist so people can't come back later in court and say, I didn't mean this. Doe can say he does or does not remember whatever he wants. That is irrelevant by comparison to what he put in writing.
When I researched the law to appeal this case, I found several laws that I considered relevant. The following quotes, taken from either Westlaw or the IL Complied Statutes, apply to the above.
A security deposit may not be held when a tenant leaves early.
His lease saying otherwise may be considered unconscionable because it is against the (815 ILCS 165/) Consumer Deposit Security Act of 1987, which states:
Security 4. Statement of Account and Release of Deposit. Within 30 days, if the lessee has no liability based upon the value of the consumer goods, after termination of a consumer lease as to which a deposit has been received by the lessor, whether the termination is early or at the expiration of the lease term, the lessor shall mail to the lessee at the lessee's last known address: a check for the full amount of any refund due to the lessee.
(Source: P.A. 85 733.)
In other words, Doe had a clause in his lease that was illegal. How typical. He also had one that waived our right to due process should there be another litigious situation.
I also learned that a lease with an unconscionable clause, such as this one, would be thrown out of court in other states, but in Illinois, it was allowed to stand. This, to me, says something significant about Illinois. This contributes to the nationwide reputation Illinois has of having a legal climate that is hostile to law abiding citizens. If this is allowed to continue, this can contribute to decent hearted people leaving our state. To what may that eventually lead???
Security 2-302. Unconscionable contract or clause.
(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result.
(810 ILCS 5/2A 108) (from Ch. 26, par. 2A 108)
Security 2A 108. Unconscionability.
(2) With respect to a consumer lease, if the court as a matter of law finds that a lease contract or any clause of a lease contract has been induced by unconscionable conduct or that unconscionable conduct has occurred in the collection of a claim arising from a lease contract, the court may grant appropriate relief.
the circuit court erred in considering lessor not responsible for his signature where he signed a written document under the words i have read and agree.
She believed her interpretation had to be brought to the situation as the sentence, Said security deposit will be returned was, in her opinion, too unclear. Hence, she asked Doe three times, What were you thinking when you signed this letter, to which he continually replied, I don't remember. Her interpretation of his motive was an error in contract law, as there was no ambiguity in what he signed. Therefore, her interpretation of his motive was irrelevant.
Generally, parol or extrinsic evidence is inadmissible to vary, alter or contradict a written instrument, where the instrument is complete on its face, unambiguous, valid, and there is no fraud or mistake in respect to the instrument.
The common-law principle that a writing intended by the parties to be a final embodiment of their agreement cannot be modified by evidence of earlier or contemporaneous agreements that might add to, vary, or contradict the writing. This rule usually operates to prevent a party from introducing extrinsic evidence of negotiations that occurred before or while the instrument was being reduced to its final written form. The parole evidence rule assumes that the formal writing reflects the parties' mind at a point of maximum resolution and, hence, that duties and restrictions that do not appear in the written documentwere not intended by the parties to survive.in addition, and quite apart from the survival of matters discarded in the course of negotiations, there is the obvious danger of outright fraud.
In other words, since Mr. Doe admitted signing that letter in late June, it was the final word written agreement about the security deposit in our relationship.
A court cannot relieve parties from their contracts or make new contracts for them, unless it appears from the evidence that such parties were in fact incapable of transacting the business.
Therefore, either Doe was a legally competent adult when he signed that letter and should be held responsible for his signature, or he was not legally competent to sign it, which means he shouldn't have done so.
The law also states, In the absence of undue influence, before a decree can be rendered setting aside leases and renewals for incapacity of the lessor, such a degree of mental weakness as renders a party incapable of understanding and protecting his own interests must be shown.in a suit to set aside leases and renewals thereof on the grounds of lessor's incapacity, the burden was upon plaintiff to show the incapacity alleged.
Therefore, Mr. Doe needed documentation to prove that he was mentally incompetent to know what he was doing when signing a letter.
Only when there is no objective indicia of intent or there is ambiguity in the description of the subject matter of the bargain, must the subjective intent of the parties be considered.
There was nothing in the lease saying it couldn't be altered by subsequent writing. Therefore, there was no reason for Judge French to spend as much time as she did quizzing Mr. Doe on his thoughts when signing the return agreement letter.
There was no ambiguity. Security deposit will be returned has only one meaning, as it was under the control of only one person, Dave Doe. The subjective intent of the parties was irrelevant. She kept asking him, What were you thinking when you signed this? But never referred to the above sentence, so that contradicts the idea that she saw that sentence during that trial.
Ii. A promise to pay something is due because it says so.
(815 ILCS 105/) Promissory Note and Bank Holiday Act. (Part 1)
Security 3. All promissory notes, bonds, due bills and other instruments in writing, shall, by virtue thereof, be due and payable as therein expressed.
Where defendant fails to file an affidavit denying the execution of an endorsement on a note, he cannot be heard to deny the same at the time of trial.
In the appeal of this case, I lost due to technicalities, not merit. Even if I had won, I don't think I would have received justice, as I may not have been paid for my time, which was considerable. Doing a pro se appeal contains more legal footwork than writing choreography for a centipede. What I think there should be:
A more forthright courtroom communication ethic should rule. Litigants would speak for themselves, as opposed to having their opponent speak for them with statements such as This letter had nothing to do with the security deposit, and be believed.
Litigants should be held more accountable for their written signatures, as stipulated by contract law, as opposed to having a lack of memory of a conversation determine a ruling.
The lease had more than one illegal section. Illinois may want to take a lesson from states that would throw such a lease out of court.
Therefore, if you live in Dupage County, Illinois, and want to avoid litigating over a security deposit return, I suggest the following:
1. Don't sign a lease saying leaving early is grounds to withhold it, as that is illegal in Illinois.
2. If you really like the apartment and the landlord won't rent to you if you don't sign the lease as is, be careful. If you decide to end your lease early, here is what I recommend in the contract he signs, assuming you can get him to:
A heading saying what the contract is about, like, MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO TERMINATE THE RESIDENTIAL LEASE BETWEEN (YOUR NAME,) LESSEE, AND (HIS NAME,) LESSOR.
The date of the contract.
The original and new dates the lease ends.
The names and roles of all parties to the contract in the first sentence. Your name, his, and the words lessee and Lessor.
The sentence about returning the security deposit has to say, I, (his name,) agree to return the security deposit. Then state the conditions under which it will take place.
Don't be surprised if he doesn't sign.
Otherwise, if you wind up litigating over it, you'll be in front of a judge who, at lease once, has disregarded the worth of a written document in favor of the memory of a litigant who can't remember a court date.
To rip off report: She allowed an unproven statement about mental incompetence I don't remember to take priority over a written document by believing the memory of a litigant who can't remember a court date.
0 comments