A tenant's battle against her property management company and housing provider has reached a legal dead end. On June 12, 2024, the Appellate Court of Illinois upheld a lower court's decision in favor of Leasing & Management Company, Inc., and Mercy Housing, Inc., following a protracted dispute initiated by plaintiff Jazmine McDougald.
McDougald filed her complaint on June 3, 2021, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, alleging that the defendants had breached their contract and retaliated against her. The plaintiff claimed that for nearly two years, she and her son endured incessant noise disturbances from tenants living above them. Despite repeated complaints to the property managers, no action was taken to resolve the issue. Instead, McDougald alleged that she faced threats of eviction for voicing her concerns.
In her initial complaint, McDougald sought $10,000 in damages and demanded that the defendants make necessary repairs to her apartment. She also requested a refund of her security deposit and rent payments made during the period of disturbance and compensation for moving expenses when she decided to relocate.
The case took several turns as it progressed through the legal system. On January 26, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss McDougald's complaint for failing to state a cause of action. The court granted this motion but allowed McDougald to file an amended complaint. In July 2022, she did so, reiterating her claims with additional details about the noise disturbances and adding allegations of retaliation under Chicago Municipal Code § 5-12-150.
McDougald’s amended complaint included evidence such as emails with property management agents and police reports documenting noise complaints. She argued that these disturbances violated house rules prohibiting excessive noise between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., which were part of her lease agreement.
However, during a bench trial on September 22, 2022, the court ruled in favor of the defendants after granting their motion for a directed finding. The court concluded that McDougald failed to establish a prima facie case for breach of contract or retaliation. It noted that while McDougald provided testimony and some evidence at trial—including video recordings capturing noises—she did not sufficiently prove that the defendants had neglected their duties or retaliated against her unlawfully.
Following this decision, McDougald filed a motion for a new trial on October 20, 2022, arguing procedural errors and presenting new evidence she believed would support her claims. However, this motion was denied on June 21, 2023.
Throughout this legal journey, McDougald represented herself pro se—a challenging endeavor given the complexities involved in litigation procedures and compliance with appellate rules. Her appeal was ultimately dismissed due to deficiencies in her brief under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h) and an incomplete record on appeal.
The attorneys involved in this case were not listed explicitly within the document; however presiding over these proceedings was Honorable H. Yvonne Coleman with Justices D.B Walker and Van Tine concurring in judgment under Case ID No.1-23-1306.