Evicted After Refusing to Sign a Written Lease

My question involves an eviction in the state of: Illinois
In short, after renting a hangar from a local public airport for 18 years that has received Federal funding I was evicted. Airport has come up with a disriminating contract to weed out people that don't spend much money with them and I refused to sign it because it did not allow me access to my rented hangar, use of my plane , etc. Judged agreed with the Plaintiff that contract did not matter. Since I did not have a contract I had to go. Now I find that during the court case the Plaintiff's witness lied on 3 different occasions along with their attorney. Question being since it has only been about 20days since the judges decision can I file for a judges reiew of the case and is ther any chance that he would change his decision. or give me a new trial?

You said you refused to sign the lease and since the landlord apparently requires a lease be signed, you had no right to stay at the hanger and were evicted.

I don't know what anybody lied about or what difference it would make. What difference do you think it would make?

I now find that some leases have exceptions to the rules and regulation hand wrote on them. The Plaintiff's witness which is the airport manager testified that all leases were the same, If I had been given this option I might have signed it .
Also the lease I was ask to sign required a million dollars liability policy with the airport named as an additional insured.
I know of one tentent that this is not required of. How many lies must a witness tell before his whole testimony is thrown
out, without this witness they really don't have a case.

Quote:

---

r.grimes;653469]I now find that some leases have exceptions to the rules and regulation hand wrote on them.

---

and? there is nothing that says all the leases have to be identical.

Quote:

---

The Plaintiff's witness which is the airport manager testified that all leases were the same, If I had been given this option I might have signed it .

---

but you weren't given whatever option was offered to some others.

Quote:

---

Also the lease I was ask to sign required a million dollars liability policy with the airport named as an additional insured.

---

that surely makes sense to me

Quote:

---

I know of one tentent that this is not required of.

---

Ok but how does that affect you?

Quote:

---

How many lies must a witness tell before his whole testimony is thrown
out, without this witness they really don't have a case.

---

actually, without a contract, you don't have a case. It is not illegal to discriminate in general. There are several things that cannot be used as the basis of discrimination but unless one of those issues (race, sex, religion, etc) is the basis of you not being offered the same contract as some others, the discrimination was not illegal.

You could file a motion to reconsider ... most states require this to be filed within 20 days of the decision.

If you have newly discovered evidence (not newly recognized-but not available before) you can include this.

And witnesses lies may or may not have any effect ... you may think so but its the judge's viewpoint that matters. Note it to keep it available for appeal.

I don't see how other leases are relevant to yours .... but you are free to argue.

The 20 days is pretty concrete....I think its 20 days in IL

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

and? there is nothing that says all the leases have to be identical.

but you weren't given whatever option was offered to some others.


that surely makes sense to me

Ok but how does that affect you?

actually, without a contract, you don't have a case. It is not illegal to discriminate in general. There are several things that cannot be used as the basis of discrimination but unless one of those issues (race, sex, religion, etc) is the basis of you not being offered the same contract as some others, the discrimination was not illegal.

---

The problem is the public airport has received Federal grant money and under the grant assurance rules they have to treat people fair and reasonible. Now I don't have a place to store my airplane and had to dismatel it. The airport has had simular issues in the past where IDOT and FFA were called in to correct the problems, they make a few changes and before long things are back to the way they were.

Quote:

---

r.grimes;653578]The problem is the public airport has received Federal grant money and under the grant assurance rules they have to treat people fair and reasonible

---

.so, what was not fair or reasonable? You refused to sign the lease.

are you the only person that was offered the lease you were offered?

There is one tentent that has addition perks wrote into his lease that the rest of us don't have.
I hangar an ultralight aircraft which is recognised by the FFA to be a legal aircraft but I do not have to follow the same requirements as a certified aircraft. I can make repairs, fly without a license etc.
Now the rules state that I must have a pilots license, and must have a certified mechanic work on my plain and any violation of these rules are suject to a fine of $100. or more plus eviction. As mention before when I question airport manager with these rule conflicting ru a letter fom airport attorney stating sign or be evicted. There are a whole lot of more problems with this lease than I have mentioned 65% of all the tentants have complained to the board about this lease and they are certified pilots. They all signed after threats of eviction but still know that they can not legally follow all of the rule and could be picked out one by one and evicted. I'm the only one that let it go to court in hopes the judge rule against the lease. The real problem hear is the Fixed Base Operator and Manager control the board to get rules that will help increase their revenue. This is a public airport and rules do not allow for anyone to call in a certified mechanic from ouside their airport. You can only park in designated parking areas which do not exist another $100. fine, can only land or take off during business hours 8-5 or when manager is present and these rules goes on for ever. This is why I'm planning on filing a disrimination lawsuit against the airport and wonder if any one believes that I might have a case or not. The wrongs in their lease are a clear violation of there agreement with receiving Fedaral grant money.

Quote:

---

r.grimes;653995]There is one tentent that has addition perks wrote into his lease that the rest of us don't have.

---

so, everybody but the one guy has the same contract that was offered to you? That really removes an argument of discrimination.

Quote:

---

This is why I'm planning on filing a disrimination lawsuit against the airport and wonder if any one believes that I might have a case or not.

---

no, you don't.

Quote:

---

The wrongs in their lease are a clear violation of there agreement with receiving Fedaral grant money

---

but that would not be a discrimination claim.

If you believe they are putting rules into the leases that they are not allowed to by whatever federal agency oversees such a situation, then contact that federal agency and work with them. As it stands, you aren't going to get anywhere the direction you are going.

I guess being that I'm so familiar with the happening at this airport over the last 18 years I tend to think that everyone else knows the history also. You might right about the discrimination suit not working, Let me back up a little then you give me your opinon again.
In the begining 18 years ago several of us who had panes hangared at this airport were really having a great time flying about every evening an never causing any problems. but these planes were small ranging from ultralights to small aircraft and did not spend money with the FBO who makes his living off repairs and selling gasoline , at that ime he was also the manager and tried to get the board to ban us from the airport. After attending several board meeting we go this stoped. So he got a little smarter throught out time with his promise of perks to board members he got rules changed and between his harassment and rule changes managed to run off all small planes and ultralights with the exception of me. Now for the last 12 years my plane has been in the hangar and not flown . I have been to some board meeting to verse my problems with the management they in turn call him down on his attitude and harassing of the public which is good for about a week then it would start all over again.. The 3 reasons I have stayed hear is that I really enjoy this sport, no others hangars close and since every 5 years the FBO and manager contract comes up for renewal I keep thing that they will find someone better for the job. I can't even send anyone to get parts from my hangar becaused the FBO/ Manager cussed the last person out 8 years back , no I have to go do it myself. I complained to the board about this and thought he would be removed but no they kept him. Do I really not have a case against this airport authority for allowing this to happen for all their own benefits and greed.
They have grounded me from by most fun hobby for close to 12 years.

The fact that you had to move your plane doesn't make the terms "unfair or unreasonable."
The FAA gives pretty broad leeway in those grant terms. They pretty much have to run off a class of users before you can even attract their attention and even so getting them to do anything on grant condition enforcement is difficult.
So you're stuck with a local non-residential lease situation in practice, which I can almost guarantee you are going to lose. Federal grant conditions will mean squat to the local court.

Flyingron isn't a lawyer, but he is a pilot, owns one hanger, leases another, and has been involved in airport contracts for several aviation businesses over the years.

I realize what you are saying about the Feds and FFA a few years back other tentants go them involved and really nothing happened. Since the lawyer has been running this whole show from the very beginning he has pressured and threatened me to sign a lease that has knows is in at least 8 or more violation of Federal rules , maybe he is the one I need to file suit against. He also lied in court about not receiving file documents that his secretary testified she had received 3 days prior to the trial. What is your opinion?