Rossi v. Peart

── Rossi v. Peart ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (1st) 251610-U No. 1-25-1610 Order filed May 26, 2026 Second Division NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ GINA ROSSI, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County. ) v. ) No. 24 CH 4080 ) MICHAEL PEART, ) Honorable ) David B. Atkins, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge, presiding. PRESIDING JUSTICE VAN TINE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices McBride and Ellis concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: We reverse the circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint seeking a resulting trust and remand for further proceedings because there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding the parties’ intent. ¶2 Plaintiff Gina Rossi appeals from the circuit court’s order dismissing her complaint seeking a resulting trust under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2024)). For the following reasons, we reverse and remand. No. 1-25-1610 ¶3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Rossi filed a one-count complaint against defendant Michael Peart. Rossi alleged that she and Peart were engaged in 2015 but never married. In 2015, during their engagement, the parties agreed to buy a $300,000 condominium in downtown Chicago. The parties’ intention was that they would “live in the [condominium] together and they would both be on the title.” However, due to Peart’s “full-time employment and preferable credit score,” the parties agreed that Peart would apply for the mortgage and act as the purchaser. The parties also agreed that Rossi would contribute $30,000 for the down payment and that they would add Rossi’s name to the title immediately after closing. The parties never intended that Peart would be the sole owner of the condominium. The parties bought the condominium on September 28, 2015. Only Peart’s name was on the title and the mortgage. The parties then moved into the condominium together. ¶5 For approximately two years, Rossi contributed to mortgage payments and homeowners’ association fees until she developed a chronic illness that prevented her from working. During that time, Peart repeatedly ignored Rossi’s requests to be added to the condominium’s title. In May 2020, the parties’ relationship ended, and Rossi moved out. In 2023, Rossi requested that Peart return the $30,000 down payment, but the parties could not reach an agreement. In 2024, Peart listed the condominium for sale. Rossi alleged that a resulting trust arose from her $30,000 contribution to the down payment and requested the court find that she had a 50% interest in the condominium. A resulting trust arises when one person pays or provides consideration for the purchase of a property but allows another pe