# Board of Directors of Bloomfield Club Recreation Ass'n v. Hoffman Group Inc.

> Illinois Supreme Court · May 20, 1999 · 186 Ill. 2d 419

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720493

## Case

- **Full name:** The BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BLOOMFIELD CLUB RECREATION ASSOCIATION, an Illinois Condominium Association, Appellant, v. THE HOFFMAN GROUP INC., a Delaware Corporation, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 20, 1999
- **Citations:** 186 Ill. 2d 419; 238 Ill. Dec. 608; 712 N.E.2d 330; 1999 Ill. LEXIS 675
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Heiple
- **Judges:** Freeman, Bilandic, Heiple, Harrison
- **Cited by:** 140 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720493

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming the denial of leave to amend by considering the four factors irrespective of the lower court’s reasoning

## Opinion text

JUSTICE HEIPLE, also dissenting:
For the reasons set forth in Justice Bilandic’s dissenting opinion, which I have joined, I dissent from the majority’s holding that the implied warranty of habitability is unavailable to plaintiffs in this case. I write separately however, to correct the majority’s mischaracterization of my dissenting opinion in VonHoldt v. Barba & Barba Construction, Inc., 175 Ill. 2d 426 (1997). Groping for a justification to deny the implied warranty of habitability to homeowners who choose to own certain amenities in common, the majority implies that application of the warranty in this case would spawn the sort of countless unprecedented causes of action against which I cautioned in my VonHoldt dissent. VonHoldt, 175 Ill. 2d at 435 (Heiple, C.J., dissenting, joined by Nickels, J.). The majority misses the point of that dissent. In Von-Holdt, a majority of this court extended the implied warranty of habitability to include actions against builders, who make “significant additions” to previously built homes. I dissented from that opinion, which expanded the implied warranty liability against all manner of construction professionals based upon an ill-defined “significant addition” standard. The complete text of that dissent is as follows:
“The majority decision expands habitability liability for all mechanics, artisans, contractors, and home renovators who make significant additions to already existing structures. This new liability runs in favor of subsequent home buyers in the complete absence of privity of contract. This is new law which opens up vast possibilities for new causes of action. The opinion leaves to future decisions the definition of ‘significant addition.’ That this expanded liability will increase the cost of home improvements cannot be doubted. It is a basic law of economics that there is no free lunch. For a society that is already wallowing in law suits, it seems to me that this judicial expansion of liability into new and undefined areas would be better left to the state legislature. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.” VonHoldt, 175 Ill. 2d at 435 (Heiple, C.J., dissenting, joined by Nickels, J.).
In contrast, plaintiffs in the instant case merely seek to be treated equally with single-family homeowners. It is clear from the record that the clubhouse facilities in question are an integral part of the plaintiffs’ residences. There can be no sound reason to deny them the benefit of an implied warranty which would unquestionably apply if the facilities were contained within the four walls of a single-family home. The policy considerations which led to the creation of the implied warranty of habitability in the first place apply with equal force under the facts of this case. Petersen v. Hubschman Construction Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31 (1979). Accordingly, I dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720493. Public record. Not legal advice.