Quantcast

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Thursday, September 12, 2024

Construction company cleared of consumer fraud allegations but ordered partial refund

State Court
F47b1f05 1841 48fa a11e 0c8d6d7280cd

Judge | https://www.pexels.com/

A recent court ruling has affirmed the decision in favor of a construction company accused of consumer fraud, but still awarded partial damages to the plaintiff. The complaint was initially filed by Sahar Halabi in the Circuit Court of Cook County on June 20, 2024, against Monarch Contract Builders, LLC and its sole manager, Patrick C. Long.

Sahar Halabi's legal battle began after she entered into contracts with Monarch Contract Builders on September 4, 2019, for demolition and construction work on her condominium's bathroom and hallway. The total cost for these projects was $9,600, for which Halabi paid a down payment of $4,200. However, complications arose when Monarch failed to commence the work within the agreed-upon three-week lead time due to issues with obtaining necessary insurance and licensing approvals from Halabi's condominium association.

Despite multiple attempts by Monarch to meet the association’s requirements through numerous emails and meetings between September 12 and September 27, 2019, the association did not approve the start of construction. Frustrated by the delays, Halabi canceled the contract on September 27th and demanded a full refund of her down payment. Monarch returned only $1,350 and retained $2,850 as compensation for incurred expenses related to site visits and efforts to obtain necessary licenses.

Halabi then filed a five-count complaint alleging violations including breach of contract and fraudulent inducement under the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/2Q(c)). She argued that Monarch’s failure to commence or complete work constituted a violation of this act and sought full economic damages along with punitive damages and attorney fees.

The trial court found that while Monarch had not commenced work due to unresolved licensing issues with the condominium association, it did not constitute a breach of contract as Monarch had made good faith efforts to comply with these requirements. The court noted that Halabi also bore some responsibility for abruptly canceling the contract without making significant efforts to resolve these issues. Consequently, while rejecting claims under consumer fraud and fraudulent inducement statutes, it ruled that Monarch’s retention of $2,850 was excessive. It awarded Halabi $2,400 instead.

Halabi appealed this decision but faced challenges due to procedural issues such as failing to file her notice of appeal within the required timeframe initially claimed by defendants. Additionally, she did not provide transcripts or trial exhibits which are crucial for appellate review. Despite these hurdles being resolved procedurally in her favor due to filing deadlines falling on weekends extending them automatically per Illinois law (5 ILCS 70/1.11), substantive arguments were insufficiently supported.

The appellate court and Justices D.B. Walker, Reyes and Lampkin upheld the trial court’s judgment stating that there was no evidence indicating intentional misrepresentation by Monarch regarding their subcontractors' licensing status before knowing specific requirements from Halabi's association. It concluded that both parties should bear their own costs as neither punitive damages nor additional reliefs were warranted given no breach under Consumer Fraud Act was established.

The case highlights complexities involved in contractual disputes especially concerning compliance with third-party regulations like those imposed by condominium associations which can significantly impact project timelines leading potential litigations if not managed transparently between involved parties.

Representing attorneys included those from respective law firms handling plaintiff Sahar Halabi’s case against defendants Monarch Contract Builders LLC managed solely by Patrick C Long under presiding Judge James Derico in Case ID No: 2020 M1 106970 at Cook County Circuit Court.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News