HB 4768

Abstract

Creates the Landlord Retaliation Act. Declares that it is against the public policy of the State for a landlord to take retaliatory action against a tenant. Prohibits a landlord from knowingly terminating a tenancy, increasing rent, decreasing services, bringing or threatening to bring a lawsuit against a tenant for possessing or refusing to renew a lease or tenancy because the tenant has in good faith has taken certain actions, including but not limited to (i) complaining of code violations applicable to the premises to the relevant governmental agency responsible for enforcement of a building, housing, health, or similar code; (ii) complaining of a building, housing, health, or similar code violation, or an illegal landlord practice to a community organization or the news media; or (iii) complaining or requesting the landlord to make repairs to the premises as required by a building code, health ordinance, other regulation, or the residential rental agreement. Creates remedies for violation by a landlord including damages, punitive damages, or recovering possession of the premises. Creates an affirmative defense under the Code of Civil Procedure in eviction actions if a landlord violates the Landlord Retaliation Act. Repeals the Retaliatory Eviction Act. Makes other changes. Senate Committee Amendment No. 1 Deletes reference to: 735 ILCS 5/9-106.4 new Replaces everything after the enacting clause with the engrossed bill and these changes. Deletes changes to the Code of Civil Procedure. Provides that the tenant may file an action seeking a recovery of an amount equal to and not more than 2 months' rent or 2 times the damages sustained by the tenant, whichever is greater, and reasonable attorney's fees. Deletes punitive damages as a remedy for the tenant for a violation of this Act. Provides that an action is not retaliatory if the landlord can prove (i) a legitimate, non-retaliatory basis for the action; or (ii) the landlord began the action before the tenant engaged in the protected activity. Provides that the rebuttable presumption does not arise if the protected tenant activity was initiated after the alleged act of retaliation.