765 ILCS 605/19: IL Court Limits Overbroad Condo Record Requests
Requests for condominium association records can be a contentious issue between condominium association boards and unit owners. 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act gives unit owners the right to examine and copy certain records, but it also limits that requests be made “with particularity.” In Blue Ocean 21-1, L.L.C. v. Greenway Court Condominium Association, 2025 IL App (1st) 232423-U, the Illinois Appellate Court reaffirmed that broad, unfocused, or “laundry-list” document demands do not satisfy that standard. The decision serves as an important reminder that while transparency is essential, record requests must be precise, relevant, and properly framed to trigger the association’s statutory duties. This article will discuss the court’s decision in Blue Ocean 21-1 and provide key takeaways for Illinois condominium associations.
Facts of Condo Records Request
The plaintiff, Blue Ocean 21-1, LLC, owned a condominium unit in Chicago that the Greenway Court Condominium Association governed. After acquiring the unit in 2022, Blue Ocean informed the association of its ownership and requested various documents pursuant to 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act.
The request, sent by email, sought the condominium association’s declaration, bylaws, amendments, rules, meeting minutes dating back to 2019, all current insurance policies, all contracts and leases, complete books and records for several fiscal years, and “any and all legal proceedings” involving the association during that same period.
Although the condominium association’s management company, Exit Strategy Realty/EMA Management, initially indicated it would provide the documents, Blue Ocean alleged that the association never fully complied. Blue Ocean filed a four-count complaint alleging (1) violation of 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, (2) breach of fiduciary duty, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) defamation.
The Circuit Court of Cook County entered judgment in part for Blue Ocean on the unjust-enrichment claim and on defamation (with no damages), but denied relief on the 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act and fiduciary-duty counts. The trial court found that Blue Ocean failed to show a “proper purpose” for obtaining records after it had sold the unit and that its request did not meet the statutory requirement of particularity. Blue Ocean appealed.
Appellate Court’s Decision on Condo Records Request
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s ruling and emphasized two key points:
- 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act requires record requests to be made “with particularity.”
The appellate court noted that the plaintiff’s nine-item request essentially copied the statute and sought “almost the entirety” of every category listed in 765 ILCS 605/19(a) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, as well as documents expressly excluded from disclosure under 765 ILCS 605/19(g) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, such as those related to pending or threatened litigation.
The court explained that “particularity” means more than simply referencing general record types, it requires the owner to specify which documents are sought and why. Citing dictionary definitions, the opinion defined “particularity” as “a minute detail” or “the quality of being individual or unique,” concluding that Blue Ocean’s blanket request for “all records” from multiple years lacked the necessary focus.
2. Appellate review was limited due to an incomplete record.
Because the appellant provided neither a transcript nor a bystander’s report of the prove-up hearing, the court presumed the evidence supported the trial court’s findings. It also observed that the record showed some evidence of compliance by the condominium association, such as a letter providing insurance and account information, further supporting the conclusion that no statutory violation occurred.
The appellate court therefore affirmed the trial court’s finding that the association did not breach 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, reasoning that the owner’s request resembled a “blunderbuss” or “laundry-list” demand rather than a particularized request for identifiable records.
Key Takeaways for Illinois Condominium Associations
- Record Requests Must Be Specific and Purpose-Driven
765 ILCS 605/19(b) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act explicitly requires that a member’s written request “state with particularity the records sought.” This case clarifies that vague or all-encompassing requests will not suffice. Instead, condo owners must identify specific documents, such as “the minutes of the July 2023 annual meeting” or “the 2022 insurance certificate,” rather than entire categories of records spanning multiple years.
Condo boards should feel empowered to reject or narrow overbroad requests while still working in good faith to provide reasonably specific records.
- Condominium Associations Should Document Their Responses to Record Requests
The appellate court noted that the management company had provided some responsive information prior to the dispute escalating. Condominium associations should always respond in writing, identify which records are being produced, and explain (with statutory citations) if certain items are exempt under 765 ILCS 605/19(g) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, such as attorney-client communications or documents relating to pending litigation. A clear paper trail can be critical evidence if litigation arises.
- Former Owners May Lack Standing to Enforce 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act
The trial court also reasoned that Blue Ocean no longer had a proper purpose to inspect records after selling its unit. While the appellate court affirmed on broader grounds, this underscores that only current “members” of the association, as defined by ownership, are entitled to demand access under 765 ILCS 605/19(b) of the Illinois Condominium Property Act. Associations may therefore deny record requests from former owners or unrelated third parties.
- Courts Will Enforce the “Particularity” Requirement
The decision reinforces that 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act’s “particularity” requirement is a statutory limitation that strikes a balance between transparency and practicality. The court’s comparison of “particularity” to heightened pleading standards in civil procedure illustrates that Illinois courts expect a degree of precision from requesting owners akin to that required in legal pleadings.
As the court observed, had the legislature intended for owners to “retype the statute,” it would not have added the word “particularity.” Boards should therefore ensure that their counsel or management staff evaluate requests carefully and, if necessary, ask the owner to clarify or narrow them before producing records.
Conclusion
The Blue Ocean decision highlights that associations should neither stonewall legitimate requests nor be forced to comply with overbroad, burdensome demands. The statutory balance struck by 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act is designed to ensure transparency without enabling harassment or fishing expeditions. For boards, it confirms that you are not required to comply with every blanket demand for “all records.”
Upon receiving a records request, Illinois condominium boards should respond promptly, produce what is properly requested, and require that requests meet the statutory standard of particularity.
At Hirzel Law, PLC, our attorneys regularly counsel condominium associations on compliance with 765 ILCS 605/19 of the Illinois Condominium Property Act, including record inspection requests, meeting procedures, and fiduciary duty obligations. Our firm’s attorneys have extensive experience defending associations in disputes over records, assessments, and governance.
For questions about how your association should handle a records request, contact Hirzel Law, PLC to speak with an experienced condominium attorney.
