Faison v. RTFX (November 15, 2013)

Faison v. RTFX (November 15, 2013)

Landlord RTFX demanded a cash security deposit from Ms. Faison, but didn’t give her a receipt or pay interest on that deposit. After she moved out, RTFX didn’t return the deposit either. Ms. Faison sued for the penalties she was due under the Chicago Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (“RLTO”). RTFX argued that the written lease was a receipt, and that Ms. Faison was entitled only to the return of her deposit, and not the penalty. After the circuit court sided with RTFX, Berton N. Ring, P.C. successfully appealed the court’s ruling. The Appellate Court agreed with Berton N. Ring, P.C. that the RLTO required an actual receipt, and payment of the statutory penalty. The Appellate Court also agreed with Berton N. Ring, P.C.’s novel interpretation of Section 5-12-100 of the RLTO, allowing a tenant to recover damages under Section 100(b) for a violation of Section 100(a). The Appellate Court concluded that “[RTFX] was required to strictly comply with the clear and unambiguous directives in the [RLTO] ordinance . . . . [W]e find that the dismissal of plaintiff’s claims pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) [of the RLTO] was in error.”

The Appellate Court, recognizing the important nature of the case, issued an order to publish the case by a written opinion which will be binding precedent on all lower courts.