Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Ross Group, Inc. v. Nicholson
No. 5-95-0898 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 6, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 51589
Description
Landlord May Not Evict Section 8 Tenant for Failure to Pay One Month’s Rent
Abstract
The appellate court has affirmed the order vacating this forcible
entry and detainer action. Plaintiff landlord had sought to evict
defendant Section 8 tenant after she failed to pay one
month’s rent. At the initial hearing, tenant, appearing pro
se, alleged that she did not pay rent after problems with her
refrigerator forced her to replace spoiled food and that landlord
refused her subsequently proffered payment. The trial court granted
landlord possession, and tenant, who had secured counsel, moved to
vacate the judgment. She argued that because she had appeared pro
se at the initial hearing she had been unable to present her
defense that HUD regulations barred landlord from terminating her
tenancy absent "good cause" or "material
noncompliance" with the lease. Moreover, because she was a
low-income tenant and was prepared to pay all amounts owed to
landlord, the trial court’s relief from the forfeiture would
prevent the injustice of her being deprived of her home. The trial
court vacated the order for possession, directed tenant to pay her
past-due rent, and dismissed landlord’s complaint. The
appellate court, noting that tenant’s motion to vacate raised
new matters that were not considered by the trial court and that
arguably would have denied landlord possession, held that
tenant’s posttrial motion was proper and that the trial court
did not err in considering it. The appellate court also held that
tenant’s defense—that the nonpayment of one
month’s rent did not constitute "material
noncompliance" with the lease—challenged
landlord’s right to possession and was germane.
