Hinch Law

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District issued an opinion on August 6, 2010 in another Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act (HRRA) case, F leissner v. Fitzgerald , Case Number 2-09-0805.  In Fleissner , a home repair contractor sued a homeowner to enforce an oral contract, by asserting four counts - I. Mechanics Lien Foreclosure; II. Breach of Contract; III. Unjust Enrichment; and IV. Quantum Meruit .  The homeowner moved to dismiss the suit under Code of Civil Procedure Section 2-619(a)(9) because the contractor failed to provide and have the homeowner sign a written agreement, and failed to give the homeowners the consumer rights brochure required under the HRRA.  The trial court granted the homeowners' motion and the contractor appealed. On appeal the contractor argued that the trial court erred in dismissing the equitable remedy counts (Unjust Enrichment and Quantum Meruit ) but the Appellate Court determined that the contractor did not contest the dismissal of t

I have written several posts to this page, most recently here , about the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act (the HRRA)  because I consider it to be an important law for contractors and consumers, and because of the variety of interpretations of the law provided by Illinois appellate courts.  Well, Governor Quinn signed a bill into law in July that changed Section 30 of the HRRA.  The new Section 30 reads as follows: Sec. 30.  Action for actual damages.  Any person who suffers actual damage as a result of a violation of this Act may bring an action pursuant to Section 10a of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Attorney Garrett Kern at the Illinois Construction Law Blog has noted that the First District Appellate Court is the first appellate court to reference the new law (the bill was not yet enacted at the time the opinion was written), in Universal Structures, LTD. v. Buchman .  The court, after holding that a contractor's failure to strictly com