It began as a run-of-the-mill collection action for unpaid assessments.
First, a demand letter was mailed to the unit owner. The unit owner neither responded to that demand letter nor tendered payment within the prescribed time period. Then, an eviction lawsuit was filed seeking a judgment for possession of the unit and money damages against the unit owner. So far, things moved quite routinely. There was no indication whatsoever that this particular collection action would be any different or more unusual than any other that I had handled.
The fact that the unit owner (let’s call him “Joe”) appeared in court pro se (i.e. representing himself, not by a lawyer) was nothing out of the ordinary. In typical fashion, I spoke to Joe outside the courtroom before the case was called. I explained why I was there, got a sense of what he expected to do, and attempted to determine whether it would be possible to resolve the matter by agreement. It is not uncommon for a pro se unit owner to be beset with a tinge of bewilderment when he or she has never been in court before. Thus, when Joe seemed a little unsure about the legal process that had been set in motion, I had no cause for alarm or that I ought to be more vigilant in my observations to perceive any minute cues that things were awry. Other than his apparent unfamiliarity with the legal system and courtroom procedures, Joe appeared articulate and cogent.
As is customary when a case is up for the first time in court, the judge will continue the case to allow the unit owner time to retain an attorney. Accordingly, Joe’s case was continued.
In retrospect, perhaps my “spidey senses” should have been tingling on that second court date when my discussions with Joe before the case was called covered the same ground as last time, without any bit of progress. However, in an attempt to work with Joe to resolve the matter, as he was promising that he could gather the funds necessary to pay the delinquency, the case was again continued.
During the interim between court dates, Joe failed to follow through on his promises to get an agreement with the association in place and to make payments toward the delinquency. Accordingly, I had no choice but to set the case for trial, which is what I did the next time we were in court. At this point in time, I was tiring of speaking with Joe about the case, because it felt like walking in circles. However, I had no inkling that Joe’s grasp on reality may be askew.
After that last court date, Joe indicated a desire to pay the debt by credit card; however, the association did not have any means to accept payment by credit card. That did not seem too strange to me, and without a resolution to the case, I simply prepared for trial. However, the next time we were in court, things started to enter the twilight zone.
First, Joe got into a minor argument with the judge because he had not filed his appearance, as the judge had previously ordered him to do. Joe seemed baffled, or maybe mystified is more appropriate, that he was supposed to have filed an appearance. Then Joe went on about how he could pay by credit card and how he should be able to pay by credit
Continued on page 10
NO F ARO
8 | COMMON INTEREST® A Publication of CAI-Illinois Chapter
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56
