A District Court judge in Illinois has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act class-action lawsuit over a fee that was assessed during eviction proceedings, because the fee was explicitly referenced in the underlying community association agreement.
The background: The plaintiffs filed suit under the FDCPA and the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, arguing that a $100 administrative fee included in an eviction and collection action was not authorized by the community association’s governing documents.
- After paying the balance demanded in the eviction case, the plaintiff alleged the fee violated federal and state law because it did not correspond to a late fee or assessment and was supposedly a standard charge imposed when the account was transferred to counsel.
- The complaint also included an unjust enrichment count, claiming the defendants improperly collected fees not allowed under the Declaration of Covenants.
- The plaintiff argued that the Illinois Common Interest Community Association Act barred management-company collection fees unless they were specifically stated in the association’s declaration, bylaws, or operating agreement. Because the fee was not expressly listed in the Declaration itself, the plaintiff claimed the defendants violated the statute and, by extension, the FDCPA.
The ruling: Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected those arguments, finding the administrative fee was clearly authorized by the association’s Rules and Regulations. Judge Coleman noted that the complaint referenced portions of the underlying eviction filing, allowing her to review the full documents.
- Doing so revealed a key provision: “Any Unit Owner account that has been referred to an attorney for collection shall be assessed a $100.00 administrative fee to cover costs associated with turning over and monitoring the file.”
- The Declaration also supported the fee, the judge found. One section allowed the association to add “all the costs of collecting the Assessment… including but not limited to attorney’s fees… and other costs associated with preparing and filing a complaint and maintaining and concluding such action.” Given that language, the court concluded the fee was specifically authorized and could not be considered unfair, deceptive, or unlawful.
- The judge added that the plaintiff could not “reasonably allege that the $100 is unreasonable for the preparation of documentation, subsequent referral, and maintenance of the suit.”
- With no viable FDCPA or ICFA claim, the unjust enrichment claim also failed, and the court dismissed the case with prejudice.
