## Facts

- An Illinois consumer sought to buy a Ford Explorer from a dealership, negotiating in Spanish, but signed English-language documents structured as a vehicle lease financed/held by Ford Motor Credit Company.
- After later learning the transaction was a lease rather than a purchase, the consumer filed fraud-related claims against the dealer and Ford Motor Credit.
- The consumer later defaulted on lease payments; Ford Motor Credit pursued possession of the vehicle and used a repossession company.
- A repossession agent allegedly came late at night, entered the consumer’s locked residential garage by force, and removed the vehicle while the consumer was asleep and without contemporaneous consent.
- The consumer settled with the dealership; the trial court dismissed earlier claims against Ford Motor Credit without prejudice.
- The consumer then filed a new action against Ford Motor Credit and the repossession defendants, asserting (among other theories) that the self-help repossession violated Illinois’s U.C.C. Article 2A “breach of the peace” limitation, and also alleging breach of contract and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act violations.
- The circuit court dismissed the challenged counts on Ford Motor Credit’s motion, and the consumer appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether allegations that a repossession agent forcibly entered a locked residential garage at night to seize a leased vehicle sufficiently plead a “breach of the peace” under 810 ILCS 5/2A-525(3), defeating self-help repossession at the pleading stage.
2. Whether the complaint adequately pleaded a breach-of-contract claim against the lessor/financing entity by identifying a valid contract, its terms, and a specific breach.
3. Whether the complaint pleaded an Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act claim with sufficient factual detail to state deceptive or unfair conduct, reliance intent, causation, and damages.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- It reversed dismissal of the U.C.C. Article 2A claim, holding the pleaded facts could constitute a breach of the peace and therefore stated a claim.
- It affirmed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim for failure to plead the contract and breach with adequate specificity.
- It affirmed dismissal of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim as conclusory and insufficiently particularized.

## Legal Principles

- Under Illinois U.C.C. Article 2A, a lessor may repossess leased goods without judicial process only if repossession can be accomplished without breach of the peace. 810 ILCS 5/2A-525(3).
- Forced entry into a locked residential garage to repossess a vehicle may constitute a breach of the peace; such allegations can be sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss.
- A breach-of-contract claim requires pleading a valid contract, its material terms, the defendant’s breach, and resulting damages; conclusory allegations are insufficient.
- An Illinois Consumer Fraud Act claim must plead specific facts showing a deceptive or unfair act in trade or commerce, intent that the plaintiff rely, actual damages, and proximate causation; generalized assertions do not satisfy pleading requirements.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the U.C.C. Article 2A breach-of-the-peace claim to proceed based on allegations of forced nighttime entry into a locked garage during repossession, but it rejected the contract and consumer-fraud theories as inadequately pleaded and remanded for further proceedings on the surviving U.C.C. claim.


Pantoja-Cahue v. Ford Motor Credit Co., 375 Ill. App. 3d 49, 872 N.E.2d 1039 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)