Henson Sr v. Sole

── Henson Sr v. Sole ── Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General 2026 IL App (4th) 251350-U NOTICE FILED This Order was filed under NO. 4-25-1350 May 26, 2026 Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL under Rule 23(e)(1). OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFERY TODD HENSON SR., ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Livingston County WILLIAM C. SOLE, DONALD McCLAREY, ) No. 25LA5 Defendants-Appellees. ) ) Honorable ) Randy A. Yedinak, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Knecht and DeArmond concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: This circuit court was right to dismiss this case as moot, and because this case was frivolous, the court did not abuse its discretion by imposing sanctions on plaintiff. ¶2 Plaintiff, Jeffery Todd Henson Sr., was a tenant in residential premises. During the term of the lease, he got into a dispute with the landlord, William C. Sole, and sued him. The other two defendants (besides Sole) were Donald McClarey, the attorney who defended Sole in the lawsuit, and Sanken Sole Realty. (Sanken Sole Realty was subsequently removed as a defendant in Henson’s amended complaint.) ¶3 On the authority of section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2- 619 (West 2024)), Sole and McClarey moved that the circuit court dismiss, with prejudice, the amended complaint. Not only did the court dismiss the amended complaint with prejudice, but the court also imposed sanctions on Henson pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (eff. Jan. 1, 2018) because this lawsuit was frivolous. ¶4 Henson appeals the dismissal and the sanctions. We affirm the circuit court’s judgment. ¶5 I. BACKGROUND ¶6 In his amended complaint, which he filed on September 24, 2025, Henson alleged as follows. ¶7 Pursuant to a written lease, Henson rented an apartment from Sole on Clinton Street in Dwight, Illinois. The term of the lease was from September 22, 2024, to September 22, 2025. ¶8 On March 4, 2025, Sole wrote Henson a letter, the substance of which was this. In the lease agreement, Henson had stipulated and agreed that he had examined the premises and that they were tenantable and in good order and repair. Also, in the lease, Henson had promised to refrain from making any alterations or improvements to the premises without Sole’s prior written consent. It had come to Sole’s attention that, notwithstanding those provisions of the lease, Henson had made unauthorized alterations to the apartment by replacing the door lock, the thermostat, and lighting. Also, Sole noted, Henson had “caused damage by attaching a security camera to the metal siding with screws and bolting TV brackets to the walls.” Consequently, Sole announced in his letter, “I have no choice but to terminate your lease immediately.” He demanded that, by April 1, 2025, Henson move out of the apartment. ¶9 The amended complaint maintained that, under t