{"id":50,"date":"2015-10-25T17:01:14","date_gmt":"2015-10-25T17:01:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kentmaynard.com\/WP\/?p=50"},"modified":"2019-04-30T15:08:24","modified_gmt":"2019-04-30T15:08:24","slug":"the-illinois-supreme-court-clarifies-limitations-period-for-crlto-claims","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kentmaynard.com\/WP\/2015\/10\/25\/the-illinois-supreme-court-clarifies-limitations-period-for-crlto-claims\/","title":{"rendered":"The Illinois Supreme Court Clarifies Limitations Period for CRLTO Claims"},"content":{"rendered":"

(Originally posted in 2009)<\/p>\n

Landis v. Marc Realty, L.L.C.<\/em>, 235 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2009)<\/p>\n

\"Marc<\/a><\/p>\n

In this case, we defended Marc Realty, a landlord accused of violating the Chicago Residential Landlord Tenant Ordinance (\u201cCRLTO\u201d)<\/a>.  Over four years after quitting an apartment, tenant sought penalties under the CRLTO for landlord\u2019s alleged failure timely to return the security deposit.  In the trial court, we successfully moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds that it was not timely filed, because a 2-year statute of limitations applies to penalties sought under the CRLTO. The First District Appellate Court affirmed, in an unpublished opinion<\/a>. Plaintiffs then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.  In their appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, Plaintiffs asked the Court to find that a five- or ten-year statute of limitations of limitations applied to their claim.<\/p>\n

 We filed an opposition brief<\/a>, and presented oral argument to the Illinois Supreme Court on November 12, 2008<\/a>.<\/p>\n