How to Enforce Condo Association Rules in Illinois: Notices, Hearings, and Fines
As an Illinois Community Association director or board member, determining how to enforce condo rules consistently can be challenging, particularly when unit owners ignore repeated warnings and smaller fines have little deterrent effect. It’s not uncommon to wonder whether increasing penalties could achieve compliance, if you can enforce penalties after previously rescinding them, or how the court system will respond when owners claim they weren’t notified of any rule changes. To put these matters to rest, a 2016 Illinois Appellate Court case, Morningside Crescent Court Condo Ass’n v. Nayak, 2016 IL App (2d) 151126-U, addressed these concerns. The main takeaways: the courts stressed clear language in procedures, consistent enforcement, and maintaining detailed records of violations. Ultimately, the courts will most likely uphold fines when they are reasonable, necessary, and properly documented. However, there are contingencies around each of these factors. To fully understand the nuances of how Illinois Condo Associations can enforce fines within their communities, it is crucial to understand the precedent this case set, and its implications.
The Backstory: How Morningside Crescent Court Condo Ass’n v. Nayak Was Established
In 2014, a unit owner at Morningside Crescent Court allowed his new tenants to move in without complying the Association moving rules. The rules required owners to provide the Association with 48-hours’ prior notice of move-in, pay a required damage deposit, and provide a copy of the tenant’s lease. If owners (and their tenants) failed to adhere to these new policies, they would be charged a flat $1000 fine (a significant increase from the previous fine in the original regulations). According to the property manager, the Association’s goal in increasing the fine was to elicit compliance with the rules and create a better “living environment and add to the value of the units.” After the fine was increased, violations of the moving rules, which had previously occurred on a regular basis, decreased to just an average of 2 per year.
How This Pertains to Condo Association Rules:
For associations wanting to increase fines in order to strengthen their community’s compliance with the rules, this could be an effective strategy. However, you may face problems with owners claiming they are not informed of the rules or amendments to the community’s bylaws. This is where the next details of this case become important.
Case Details: Dealing With Owner Pushback
When the new rules were added to Morningside Crescent Court’s bylaws in 2009, all association members (a.k.a. unit owners) were notified of the changes via a written notice mailed to their addresses on file. The Defendant (the owner in question) claimed that he never received this notice due to an incorrect mailing address, despite the fact that he had complied with the new rules for every new move-in he’d facilitated between 2009 and 2014. After the February 2014 move-in, the Association mailed the Defendant (using the same incorrect address) a notice that the move-in had resulted in 4 different violations and that the Defendant was subject to a $4,000 fine. The notice also stated that a hearing would be held in April 2014. It was later returned, and the certification showed it was not delivered, however, the Association also sent the notice to the Defendant via e-mail. The Defendant ultimately attended the hearing, and the Association confirmed that the Defendant violated the rules and imposed the $4,000 fine. The Defendant did not pay the fine, and the Association mailed him a notice and demand letter (again, to the incorrect address). The tenants received a copy that had been mailed to the unit, though, and provided the copy to the defendant. The Defendant crossed off the incorrect address, wrote in the correct address, and returned it to the Association.
How Did the Association Respond?
At that time, the Association’s property manager directed the Association’s attorney to send a letter to the Defendant rescinding the fine. The letter clearly stated that “the Board’s action in rescinding the referenced fines nor this letter [should] be construed as a waiver on the Board [‘s] part of the right to give notice and impose fines, and/or take action to collect same, with respect to violations of the Association’s Declaration, By–Laws or rules and regulations.” Further, the letter invited the Defendant to meet with the rules committee to discuss “the matters and issues that resulted in the above-referenced fines, charges and actions.” In other words, taking back the $4,000 fine was a temporary resolution and would not constitute as waiver in the court of law. This is an important distinction to note as we get to the court rulings. An additional notice of a hearing was sent to the defendant, and after admittingly receiving this notice, the defendant did not attend the hearing. The Association reimposed the $4000 fine. The defendant did not pay the fine, and the association moved it to collections, eventually resulting in litigation.
Trial Court Results
In the trial court, the judge determined that the language in the amended 2009 rules was ambiguous as to whether multiple fines could be assessed for each rule violation (as the Association had done in imposing the $4,000 fine for 4 violations) or if the Association could only assess a $1,000 fine per incident, even though it may involve several rule violations. Consequently, the trial court reduced the total fine to $1,000 and awarded the Association possession of the unit, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The Defendant appealed, arguing that the Association had waived its enforcement rights and that the fine was unreasonable.
The Appellate Court Ruling: Clarity on the 3 Key Legal Arguments
The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s ruling in full, addressing three key legal arguments that were raised by the Defendant:
1. Waiver Argument Rejected
The Defendant pointed to the letter from the Association’s attorney that initially rescinded the $4,000 fine as proof that the Association waived its enforcement rights. However, the court noted that the letter explicitly stated it was not a waiver of the Association’s rights and invited Defendant to meet with the rules committee to further discuss the violations. Waiver, the court reminded, requires a “clear, unequivocal, and decisive act.” That was absent here.
2. No Basis for Equitable Estoppel
The Defendant also attempted to invoke equitable estoppel, claiming he was misled by the Association’s rescission letter. Again, the court found no evidence of misrepresentation or detrimental reliance. The Defendant had received the Association’s follow-up notices and attended one of the hearings, demonstrating that he was aware of the charges against him.
3. Fine Was Reasonable
Most importantly, under the Illinois Condominium Property Act (765 ILCS 605/1, et. seq), the court found the $1,000 fine was reasonable. The Association had previously tried assessing lower fines, which failed to deter violations. The rules were intended to create a better living environment and increase property values. Given the goals behind the rules and the persistent lack of compliance with them in the face of lower fines, the court found that it was reasonable for the Association to increase the fine to an amount that resulted in compliance with the rules. The evidence showed that the increased fine had the desired effect because violations dropped significantly. Accordingly, the fine amount was reasonable under the circumstances.
Applications for Illinois Associations Determining How To Enforce Condo Rules:
The Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in Morningside Crescent offers the following implications for board members enforcing Illinois condo association rules:
1. Waiver Requires More Than Courtesy Letters
Community associations often send letters to unit owners to de-escalate conflicts. However, these communications should be drafted carefully to avoid creating the impression of waiver. The Illinois Appellate Court noted the Association’s explicit reservation of rights, which preserved its ability to reimpose the fine. Associations should always include clear non-waiver language when extending grace or revisiting enforcement decisions.
2. Equitable Estoppel Is a High Bar
Owners often claim they were misled or that associations acted inconsistently. The Illinois Appellate Court quickly dismissed that claim in this case, holding that the burden of proving equitable estoppel is high and that rescinding a fine, even temporarily, does not constitute a misleading statement. Associations can take comfort in knowing that courts will not stretch estoppel doctrines to shield owners from the consequences of repeated noncompliance.
3. Evidence of Prior Compliance Is Key
Although the Defendant claimed he never received notice of the 2009 rule changes, there was evidence that in prior moves the Defendant had complied with those rules, which presented a strong rebuttal to his claim that he did not know the rules or that he was prejudiced by any lack of notice. This reinforces the importance of documenting owner compliance and violations, as past behavior may become crucial evidence.
4. Strong Fines Can Be Reasonable If Properly Justified
Community associations often hesitate to impose large fines, fearing they might be deemed arbitrary. However, Morningside Crescent shows that an association can justify significant fines if it can demonstrate that lesser penalties failed to achieve compliance. The Association’s proactive steps and consistent enforcement history persuaded the Illinois Appellate Court in this particular case. Accordingly, Illinois community associations may be able to impose larger fines if justified by the circumstances.
Final Takeaways
The Illinois Appellate Court’s decision in Morningside Crescent reaffirms that Illinois community associations have the legal authority to adopt and enforce rules that promote order, safety, and community welfare. When owners disregard those rules, associations must act and be prepared to justify their actions in court. Fortunately, courts are willing to back associations that operate fairly and transparently. This case serves as a reminder that waiver and estoppel defenses are not easily sustained, and that fines, even significant ones, will be upheld if they are reasonable and properly justified. Associations should feel empowered to revise outdated fine structures, address persistent violations, and take enforcement seriously. If your board is unsure of how to enforce condo rules, increase penalties, or manage enforcement proceedings, it’s critical to consult with experienced legal counsel. The attorneys at Hirzel Law, PLC are experienced community association attorneys who address all aspects of condominium and HOA law. We work closely with condominium and HOA boards to ensure that their rules are enforceable, their procedures are legally compliant, and their communities are protected.
