## Facts

- A large Chicago high-rise condominium association (705 units) was governed by a board authorized to adopt rules for property use and operation.
- The declaration and bylaws did not address pets, but the board adopted pet rules: a permission-based pet rule in 1976 and, in 1980, a rule barring owners from bringing additional dogs onto the premises; the rule was later incorporated into the association’s rules.
- Two unit owners twice signed written pet agreements acknowledging the no-dog rule (once when purchasing in 1985 and again in 1993 while leasing another unit).
- In June 1993, those owners acquired a dog despite their written acknowledgments and the existing rule.
- After notice and a hearing, the board ordered removal of the dog within 30 days and imposed a $100-per-day fine if the dog remained.
- When fines were not paid, the board recorded a statutory lien under the Illinois Condominium Property Act and filed a foreclosure action to collect the unpaid fines; other interested parties were joined due to their unit-related interests.
- The circuit court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the no-dog rule was unreasonable and unenforceable.
- The board appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the board’s no-dog rule, adopted under statutory and governing-document rulemaking authority, was reasonable and therefore enforceable against owners who had notice of it.
2. If the rule was enforceable, whether unpaid fines could be secured by a statutory lien and collected through foreclosure.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the no-dog rule was a reasonable exercise of the board’s authority and not contrary to public policy.
- Because the rule was enforceable, the board could seek to collect unpaid fines through the statutory lien and foreclosure mechanisms, subject to statutory and procedural requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Condominium board rules adopted pursuant to statutory authority are generally presumed valid if they are reasonable and not contrary to public policy.
- When governing documents are silent on a particular use restriction, a board may still regulate that subject by rule if the restriction falls within delegated rulemaking authority and does not conflict with the declaration or bylaws.
- Reasonableness is assessed in light of legitimate association interests (including health, safety, sanitation, noise control, and residents’ quiet enjoyment), and courts generally defer to board determinations when the rule bears a rational relationship to those interests.
- Clear notice to the owners, including written acknowledgments of the rule, supports enforcement and weighs against claims of unfair surprise.
- Under the Illinois Condominium Property Act, properly imposed fines for rule violations may be enforced as a lien against the unit, and the lien may be foreclosed to collect unpaid amounts when procedural protections (such as notice and an opportunity to be heard) are provided.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that a condominium association’s no-dog rule was reasonable and enforceable and that the association could pursue foreclosure of a statutory lien to collect unpaid fines assessed for violating the rule, requiring reversal of the trial court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.


Bd. of Dirs. of 175 E. Del. Place Homeowners Ass'n v. Hinojosa, 287 Ill. App. 3d 886, 679 N.E.2d 407 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1997)