In Henderson Square Condominium Association v. LAB Townhomes, LLC, 2014 IL App (1st) 130764, a condominium association sued the developer and contractor after unit owners discovered wide-ranging property defects in their units. (For Chicago readers: the project is near that nightmarish, multi-cornered Belmont-Lincoln-Ashland intersection on the North side).
The property’s construction was completed in 1996, the unit owners discovered the property defects in 2007-2008 and filed suit in 2011 – nearly 15 years after construction was finished and about 4 years after discovery of the defects. The extent of the unit damage wasn’t revealed until a consultant hired by the association opened up the unit walls and ceilings.
The association sued for breach of implied warranty of habitability, fraud, negligence, for violating the Chicago Municipal Code section (Section 13-72-030) governing real estate marketing misrepresentations. The trial court dismissed all the claims as time-barred. The association appealed.
Result: Trial court reversed. Association’s claims reinstated
Rules/reasoning:
The basis for the reversal was the defendants’ possible fraudulent concealment of the association’s causes of action. Code Section 13-214(a)and (b) provide a four-year limitations and 10-year repose period for construction-related claims, respectively. The construction repose period can have harsh results: it means that no matter when a plaintiff discovers an injury, if more than 10 years have elapsed since construction was complete, the plaintiff’s claim is barred.
But Code section 13-214(e) provides that the repose period doesn’t apply where a defendant makes fraudulent misrepresentations or fraudulently conceals a plaintiff’s claim. 735 ILCS 5/13-214(e); ¶ 28. When fraud is involved, the five-year limitations period set forth in Code Section 13-205 (735 ILCS 5/13-205) applies. To demonstrate fraudulent concealment, a plaintiff must show silence coupled with deceptive conduct or the suppression of material facts. ¶¶ 95-96.
The Court found a question of fact as to whether there was active concealment based on (1) defendants’ marketing documents: a sales brochure that made specific statements concerning unit insulation; and (2) the anemic repair reserves earmarked by the developer for repairs. The Court held that if the defendants didn’t inform the plaintiff that the units lacked insulation – as the plaintiff’s consultant found and noted in its report – and if the reserve levels weren’t large enough to meet anticipated future repairs, this could show fraudulent concealment sufficient to beat the repose period argument. (¶¶ 98- 102).
The Court also sustained the association’s claims that were premised on Municipal Code. Sections 13-72-030 and 13-72-100 of the Code provide a real estate buyer both with a private cause of action and damages remedy (including attorneys’ fees) where a seller makes misrepresentations in the course of marketing the sale of real estate; including condominiums. The First District found that the association stated a cause of action under the Ordinance and rejected the defendants’ argument that the Ordinance claims were duplicative of the association’s fraud claims. The Court found the Ordinance gave rise to a private right of action and provided an additional remedy to a common law fraud claim. (¶¶112-113).
Validating the plaintiff’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, the Court looked to the Illinois Condominium Act (“Act”). Section 9.2 of the Act imposes a duty on a developer to adequately fund a reserve account for future improvements and repairs. 765 ILCS 605/9(c)(1), (2). A “reasonable reserve” amount is a fact-based inquiry determined by (1) repair and replacement costs, and the (2) estimated remaining useful life of the property’s various structural, mechanical and energy components and its common elements. (¶¶ 122-123, 129).
The Court held that the question of whether the developer adequately funded the repairs reserve account wasn’t properly decided on a Section 2-615 motion. And since the association properly pled that the developer breached fiduciary duties by failing to disclose known, latent defects in the property, the association stated a valid claim for breach of fiduciary duty (or at least one that survives a motion to dismiss).
Take-aways:
The Court found that a breach of fiduciary duty claim against a developer can survive almost 15 years after the developer’s last involvement with the property (the property was completed in 1996 and suit wasn’t filed until 2011). The case also underscores the importance of adequately funding reserve accounts and demonstrates that claims premised on the City Ordinance sections governing false statements in real estate sales literature can be brought independently of common law fraud claims. Henderson Square also illustrates the evidentiary showing a plaintiff must make to trigger the fraudulent concealment exception to the 10-year repose period applicable to construction claims.
