Legal Opinion · Dissent

Knolls Condominium Ass'n v. Harms

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 26, 2001No. 2-00-0485 RelPublished

1DissentJustice Bowman

I respectfully dissent. The majority reasons that by use of the principle inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, or the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other, the legislature intended that section 12— 903 of the homestead statute as it appears in the Code bar the use of a forcible entry and detainer action by a condominium association against a unit owner for unpaid maintenance assessments. In the majority’s view, the language of section 12 — 903 of the homestead statute trumps the specific language of both the Condominium Property Act and the forcible entry and detainer statute (735…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Henrich v. Libertyville High SchoolIllinois Supreme Court · 1999
  2. Carter v. Du Page County SheriffAppellate Court of Illinois · 1999
  3. Scalise v. ZarateAppellate Court of Illinois · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API