Supreme Court Summaries
Opinions filed January 25, 2013
Poris v. Lake Holiday Property Owners Association, 2013 IL 113907
Appellate citation: 2012 IL App (3d) 110131.
JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Garman, Karmeier, Burke, and Theis concurred in the judgment and opinion.
Lake Holiday is a private lake community in La Salle County. The plaintiff has owned property in the development since 1994 and is a member of the Lake Holiday Property Owners Association, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation. The association has traffic rules, including rules against speeding. It provides for fines, and maintains a security department. On October 20, 2008, plaintiff was on a road on the private grounds when he was stopped for speeding by a security officer and received a citation. He responded by filing a suit in circuit court raising numerous issues, on all of which the trial court awarded summary judgment in favor of the defendant association, its board of directors, and its security chief.
In this decision, the Illinois Supreme Court held that the circuit court of La Salle County had been correct in all of its rulings, which rejected the plaintiff’s claims. The supreme court approved the trial court’s holding that the association retained the right to enforce its own traffic rules and regulations, stop and detain drivers, and issue citations. In so doing, the security officers did not unlawfully assert police powers. The supreme court also said that it had not been contrary to statute for the association to use amber oscillating lights on its vehicles and that plaintiff had not established the elements of the claim for false imprisonment which he made.
The appellate court was reversed insofar as it reached a different result in favor of the plaintiff. Some of the circuit court’s rulings in the defendants’ favor had not been addressed by the appellate court, amounting to an affirmance, and those were upheld here. Therefore, the appellate court judgment stands reversed in part and affirmed in part. All of the trial court’s rulings in favor of the defendants were upheld.