SB2265 amends Illinois eviction procedure law to prohibit naming a minor as a defendant in an eviction complaint. Under the bill, if a complaint names a defendant who is a minor at the time of filing, or who was a minor when the lease at issue was signed, the entire eviction case must be dismissed against all defendants. The bill also requires that any such dismissed case be immediately sealed.
The measure creates a remedy for minors improperly named in eviction actions: they may recover reasonable attorney’s fees, actual damages, and liquidated damages of $1,000, in addition to any other remedies otherwise available under law. The bill also preserves the ability of a landlord or other plaintiff to refile against any defendants who may properly be named, but it bars the court from waiving refiling fees when the case is refiled.
Impact
The bill would amend Sections 9-106 and 9-121 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, changing eviction pleading rules and sealing requirements. It would make it unlawful to include a minor defendant in an eviction complaint and would require dismissal and sealing if that occurs, thereby affecting landlords, property owners, tenants, and circuit courts handling eviction cases. It also adds a statutory damages and fee-shifting remedy for minors and reinforces the confidentiality of dismissed eviction records.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented debate or formal vote history to gauge legislative sentiment. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears protective of minors and aimed at preventing eviction actions from being brought against children or young people, suggesting a consumer- and tenant-protection orientation.
Contention
The main policy issue is the breadth of the dismissal remedy: the bill requires dismissal of the entire case against all defendants if a minor is improperly named, rather than simply removing the minor from the case. That could be viewed by landlords as a significant procedural penalty, especially because it also triggers immediate sealing and potential damages. Supporters are likely to emphasize child protection, privacy, and preventing improper eviction filings against minors, while opponents may focus on the burden on landlords, the risk of delay, and the mandatory refiling fees.