HB0024 amends the Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act to address attorney’s fees in home repair and remodeling contracts. If a covered contract includes a clause allowing attorney’s fees to be awarded to any party, the bill requires that clause to be construed as allowing reasonable attorney’s fees to be awarded to all parties to the contract, regardless of any contrary contract language. The new rule applies only to contracts executed on or after the bill’s effective date.
The bill is narrow in scope and focused on contract fairness in the home repair and remodeling market. It does not create a new private right of action or broadly rewrite the Act; instead, it changes how fee-shifting provisions are interpreted when they appear in contracts covered by the statute. The act takes effect immediately upon becoming law, and the bill was ultimately enacted as Public Act 104-0033.
Impact
HB0024 adds a new Section 31 to the Home Repair and Remodeling Act (815 ILCS 513/31), requiring reciprocal interpretation of attorney-fee provisions in covered home repair and remodeling contracts. In practice, any contract clause that would award attorney’s fees to one party must be read to allow reasonable fees to either side, which limits one-sided fee provisions and may affect litigation strategy and settlement leverage in disputes under the Act. The change applies prospectively to contracts executed on or after the effective date.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial. It passed the Illinois House 112-0 and the Senate 57-0, indicating unanimous recorded support in both chambers. With no committee transcript available and no recorded opposition in the vote history, the overall sentiment suggests consensus around the bill’s consumer- and fairness-oriented approach to contract attorney-fee provisions.
Contention
There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available record. The main policy issue is whether attorney-fee clauses in home repair contracts should be made reciprocal rather than enforceable only for one side, but the unanimous votes suggest that lawmakers largely agreed with the change. Any practical concern would likely come from contractors or contract drafters who may prefer one-way fee provisions, while homeowners and consumer advocates would likely view the bill as a protection against unfair bargaining terms.