ALF /KJC- 3027906

Atty. No. 42907

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS

COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION
THE EUGENIE/WELLS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, an Illinois Not-For-Profit
Corporation, STEPHAN C. DRAKE and NICOLE
H. DRAKE, husband and wife, MATTHEW A.
SCHMALING and RITA W. SCHMALING,
husband and wife, STEPHEN MURRAY, JR. and
CHRISTINE MURRAY, husband and wife, and
MARY DEE BERNSTEIN,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs;
)
)
vs.
)
)
SPROING FITNESS, LLC, an Illinois Limited
)
)
Liability Company, SPROING SPORTS CLUB,
LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company,
)
WAUKEE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, LLC, )
an Iowa Limited Liability Company, WEST BANK,)
an Iowa banking corporation, and WATERMARK )
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Illinois
)
Limited Liability Company,
)
)
)
Defendants.

2015CH16007

!="?:-.H1~~ n:;;nnM
'!""C.!
"..:": :=-~=
~:..:-: ::. ':. .." =~\-'"~"'
...- T ~~r
rs:.r=
=:;I\
= .. :=::
v~: = '- ;.;-

07

I ~ij~nction

CASE NO.
CALENDAR:
JURY DEMAND

--'

c~.J ~

C-:'1

':-"l

~ .ii

l
. ''

1,.

""

--'I
(_,J

COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY and PERMANENT INJUNCTIONS

TRESPASS, EJECTMENT, BREACH OF COVENANTS
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT, NUISANCE and DAMAGES

Plaintiffs, THE EUGENIE/WELLS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, an Illinois NotFor-Profit Corporation, STEPHAN C. DRAKE and NICOLE H. DRAKE, husband and wife,
MATTHEW A. SCHMALING and RITA W. SCHMALING, husband and wife, STEPHEN
MURRAY, JR. and CHRISTINE MURRAY, husband and wife, and MARY DEE BERNSTEIN,
for their Complaint against Defendants, SPROING FITNESS, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability
Company, SPROING SPORTS CLUB, LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability Company, WAUKEE
REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, LLC, an Iowa Limited Liability Company, WEST BANK, an
Iowa banking corporation, and WATERMARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC, an Illinois
Limited Liability Company, state as follows:
PARTIES
1.
THE EUGENIE/WELLS CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION (the
"ASSOCIATION") is an Illinois Not-For-Profit Corporation which has the rights, duties and
obligations vested in it by the owners of the Eugenie/Wells Condominiums located at 205 West

...

Eugenie Street, in Chicago, Illinois (the "CONDO PROPERTY"), pursuant to the Illinois
Condominium Property Act, 765 ILCS 60511, et. seq. and the Declaration of Condominium
Ownership ("the Condominium Declarations") and the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions
Restrictions and Easements (the "Declaration of Covenants"), including but not limited to the
rights to enforce the Declaration of Covenants and to bring suit to obtain redress for the interests
ofthe ASSOCIATION. A true and accurate copy of the Declaration of Covenants is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 1.
2.
The CONDO PROPERTY is part of a four (4) story mixed-use building (the
"TOTAL PROPERTY"). The CONDO PROPERTY consists of a ground level parking area, and
the 2"d, 3rd, and 4th floor of the TOTAL PROPERTY TOTAL PROPERTY, along with common
area walkways and an open courtyard.
3.
The 1st floor ofthe TOTAL PROPERTY consists of commercial space (the
"COMMERCIAL PROPERTY").
4.
STEPHAN C. DRAKE and NICOLE H. DRAKE own unit G of the CONDO
PROPERTY and reside there with their infant daughter.
5.
MATTHEW A. SCHMALING owns unit D ofthe CONDO PROPERTY and
resides there with his wife RITA W. SCHMALING.
6.
STEPHEN MURRAY, JR. and CHRISTINE MURRAY own unit F of the
CONDO PROPERTY and reside there with their infant son.
7.
MARY DEE BERNSTEIN owns and resides in unitE of the CONDO
PROPERTY.
8.
SPROING FITNESS, LLC, and SPROING SPORTS CLUB, LLC, are Illinois
Limited Liability Companies which lease a portion of the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, in the
same building as the CONDO PROPERTY but using a street address of 1652 North Wells Street,
in Chicago, Illinois, and either one or both of these companies conduct business as "Sproing
Sport" (together, the Sproing LLCs and the business conducted at 1652 North Wells shall be
referred to as "SPROING").
9.
The CONDO PROPERTY contains 10 residential units, each of which has been
damaged by the defendants' actions. However, 6 residential unit owners are not separately
identified as plaintiffs as their interests are adequately represented by the ASSOCIATION. The
residential unit owner-plaintiffs (identified above) occupy units that are situated directly above
SPROING and have suffered distinct harms in addition to the damages suffered by the
ASSOCIATION.
10.
WAUKEE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATES, LLC ("WAUKEE"), is an Iowa
Limited Liability Company that owns the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, and leases to
SPROING.

11.
WEST BANK is an Iowa banking corporation that holds a mortgage interest in
the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY and is named as an interested party.
12.
WATERMARK PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC ("WATERMARK"), an
Illinois Limited Liability Company, manages COMMERCIAL PROPERTY on behalf of, and as
an agent ofWAUKEE.
VENUE
13.
The matters in dispute all concern the TOTAL PROPERTY (which consists ofthe
CONDO PROPERTY and the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY}, located within the Old Town
neighborhood in Chicago, Illinois, within Cook County.
BACKGROUND
14.
The TOTAL PROPERTY has operated in its current form since 1991 when the
Declaration of Covenants between the CONDO PROPERTY and the COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY was created and recorded with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds as document
number 91306546, and the CONDO PROPERTY has been continuously occupied since then.
15.
The Declaration of Covenants sets forth the rights, benefits, and obligations of the
ASSOCIATION, WAUKEE and SPROING, vis-a-vis each other and, to the TOTAL
PROPERTY, in order "protect the respective values of each" portion of the TOTAL
PROPERTY.
16. Each of the covenants, conditions, restrictions, and uses created by the Declaration of
Covenants run with the land and is binding upon the ASSOCIATION, WAUKEE and
SPROING. 1
17.
Historically, the CONDO PROPERTY has been home to 10 exclusive, highly
desirable, residential condominium units located in one of the most inviting and charismatic
neighborhoods within the City of Chicago. To this point, the Declaration of Covenants
specifically provide at 27.6: "The provisions of this Declaration shall be construed to the end that
the Total Property shall remain a first-class mixed-use property."
18.
Prior to SPROING's operations, the residents ofthe CONDO PROPERTY lived
peacefully and harmoniously with the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. If there were any
disturbances from the commercial units, they were rare and isolated events.
19.
Through the many years oftrouble-free, peaceful co-existence between the
CONDO PROPERTY and the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY the common walls have been
demonstrated to be sufficiently sound-proofed for typical urban uses, and the residents of the
CONDO PROPERTY have established themselves as being tolerant of typical urban noise.

A recorded covenant runs with the land, and a tenant has constructive notice of recorded covenants. De Kalb Bank
v. Purdy (1988), 166 Ill.App.3d 709, 725, 117 Ill.Dec. 606, 520 N.E.2d 957.

20.
The Declaration of Covenants specifically provide at Article XXVIII,
"RESTRICTION ON USE OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTY," that:
a.
"28.1 -The Owner of the Commercial Property shall be restricted from
leasing all or any portion of the Commercial Property to a tenant which use may be
considered a private or public nuisance by a court oflocal jurisdiction."
b.
"28.2(A)- Notwithstanding the zoning which applies to the Commercial
Property, the Commercial Property may not be used for ... [uses] ... which requires
exhaust/ventilation ... "
21.
The Declaration of Covenants specifically provide at Article XXIII,
"ALTERATIONS," that:
a.
"23 .1 (B) - . . . Alterations shall not be made without the prior written
consent of the Owners if such Alterations will:
(1) unreasonably diminish the benefits afforded to such Owners by
any Easement or unreasonably interrupt such Owners use or enjoyment of any Easement,
(2) materially alter the fa9ade of the Improvements ... ,
(5) materially change the expected pedestrian and Vehicular traffic
patterns or ingress and egress."
b.
"23.4- Nothing contained in this Article XXIII shall give any Owner or
Owners the right to construct any additional structures which may interfere with light, air
or access to property of the other Owner or interfere with any Owner's right to derive the
benefits ofthis Agreement."
22.
On information and belief, at some point prior to January of2014, WAUKEE's
predecessor entered into a lease with SPRO IN G through the assistance of WATERMARK.
23.
On information and belief, at some point prior to June of2014 SPROING began
to conduct aerobic fitness classes.
24.
SPROING's aerobic fitness classes are similar to the classes popularized by
Richard Simmons and Jane Fonda in the 1980s, but are differentiated by the use of a proprietary
spongy treadmill that students bounce on as they are guided through fancy dance steps.
25.
To motivate the students in their aerobic fitness classes, the instructors play music
at excessive volume and shout inspiring mantras at the students through microphones, such as,
"you can do it," "harder.. faster. .. one more," "feel the bum," and "five more ... four more ...
three more ... two more ... one more ... good job, good job!"

26.
Throughout its operations, SPROING's aerobic classes have been conducted
seven days a week, as early as 5:30a.m., and as late as 8:30p.m.
27.
From the moment SPROING began conducting its aerobic classes and continuing
through the date of this Complaint, it has created a nuisance to all plaintiffs by playing their
dance-club and hip-hop style music at such extreme volumes that it causes disturbances in the
individual units of the CONDO PROPERTY as further described below. These disturbances
become even more acute when the instructors shout motivational catch-phrases at the students
through their microphones.
28.
The disturbances emanating from SPROING have been so loud that the plaintiffs
are often able to recognize the songs and the motivational phrases used by the instructors from
their residential units. At many other times, the plaintiffs are disturbed by thumping bass,
vibrations, and other collateral impacts.
29.
The disturbances emanating from SPROING have awoken the unit owner
plaintiffs, prevented them from going to sleep, prevented them from holding conversations in
their units, interfered with their relationships and social plans, prevented them from holding
conference calls and/or conducting business from their homes, and have otherwise disturbed the
peaceful enjoyment of their property.
30.
Title VI of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS 5/23, et. seq.) provides
that, "excessive noise endangers physical and emotional health and well-being, interferes with
legitimate business and recreational activities, increases construction costs, depresses property
values, offends the senses, creates public nuisances, and in other respects reduces the quality of
our environment." (415 ILCS 5/23) Further that, "[ n]o person shall emit beyond the boundaries
of his property any noise that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment oflife or with any
lawful business or activity .... " (415 ILCS 5/24).
31.
Despite often and repeated complaints to SPROING, WATERMARK, and
WAUKEE, the disturbances emanating from SPROING have persisted without abatement.
32.
In March, 2015, industrial ventilation ducts and fans were installed at two
locations on the CONDO PROPERTY: an exterior ventilation shaft was affixed to the western
wall ofthe CONDO PROPERTY beginning at a height of approximately sixty-five inches and
extending vertically upward; and a large circular fan was affixed to the southern wall of the
CONDO PROPERTY in the fire exit stairwell, at an approximate height of forty-two inches,
with a diameter of approximately three feet, and intruding into the stairwell by approximately
eighteen inches (cumulatively, "industrial ductwork").
33.
On information and belief, the industrial ductwork above provides ventilation to
SPROING and was installed by or on behalf of SPROING and WAUKEE with the cooperation
and consent of WATERMARK.
34.
The industrial ductwork was installed by accessing the CONDO PROPERTY's
common areas without permission and against the will of the ASSOCIATION.
5

35.
The industrial ductwork was installed by permanently altering the CONDO
PROPERTY's common area walls, without permission and against the will of the
ASSOCIATION.
36.
The industrial ductwork is unsightly, devalues the CONDO PROPERTY,
interferes with Plaintiffs' ability to move about the common areas, vents smoke and debris into
the CONDO PROPERTY and creates a safety hazard that conflicts with the Chicago Building
Code, particularly including Chapter 13-160 pertaining to fire exits (e.g. "There shall be no
obstruction in any exitway that may hamper travel and evacuation." 13-160-070).
Article V of the Declaration of Covenants specifies the Easements granted in
37.
favor of the Commercial Property, but no easements have been created that provide any right for
SPROING, WATERMARK, or WAUKEE to install or maintain the industrial ductwork.
38.
The Declaration of Covenants provides at section 13.9 that WAUKEE, as
defaulting Owner, shall pay all reasonable attorneys' fees and court costs paid or incurred by
plaintiffs, the creditor Owners, in enforcing the rights set forth in the Declaration of Covenants.
39.
The ASSOCIATION has made repeated requests to SPROING, WAUKEE, and
WATERMARK to remove the industrial ductwork, but this request has been ignored.
40.
The ASSOCIATION has made repeated requests to SPROING, WAUKEE, and
WATERMARK to reduce the noise broadcast from SPROING, but this request has been
ignored.
41.
The ASSOCIATION has made repeated requests to SPROING, WAUKEE, and
WATERMARK to install sufficient soundproofing at SPROING to reduce the impact of the
noise broadcast from SPROING to tolerable levels, but this request has been ignored.
COUNT I: BREACH OF COVENANTS
For Count I of its Complaint, the ASSOCIATION seeks relief against WAUKEE and
states as follows:
42.
The ASSOCIATION incorporates above paragraphs 1-41 as if said allegations
were fully set forth herein.
43.
As the Owner of the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, WAUKEE, and SPROING
are bound by the terms and conditions of the Declaration of Covenants.
44.
As the Lessor to SPROING, WAUKEE owes a duty to the ASSOCIATION to
ensure that the Declaration of Covenants is observed by SPROING.
45.
As the principal and master over WATERMARK, WAUKEE owes a duty to the
ASSOCIATION to ensure that the Declaration of Covenants is enforced by WATERMARK.
6

46.
As the successor in title to SPROING's prior Lessor, WAUKEE is legally
responsible for the predecessor's duties, responsibilities, and liabilities under the SPROING
lease.
47.
As leaseholder upon the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, SPROING is bound by
the covenants, conditions and restrictions found in the Declaration of Covenants.
48.
WAUKEE has violated the Declaration of Covenants through one or more of the
following acts or omissions:
a. Leasing the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY to SPROING with the knowledge
that SPROING was likely to create a nuisance.
b. Facilitating and/or failing to prevent SPROING and WATERMARK from
making unauthorized use of the CONDO PROPERTY to install industrial
ductwork.
c. Facilitating and/or failing to prevent SPROING and WATERMARK from
installing industrial ductwork upon the CONDO PROPERTY.
d. Failing to remove the industrial ductwork upon demand from the
ASSOCIATION.
e. Failing to reduce the noise broadcast from SPROING upon demand from the
ASSOCIATION.
f.

Failing to install sufficient soundproofing at SPROING to reduce the impact

of the noise broadcast from SPROING to tolerable levels upon demand from
the ASSOCIATION; and

g. Failing to evict SPROING.

49.
As a direct and proximate result of WAUKEE's breaches as set forth above, the
ASSOCIATION has suffered multiple damages, including but not limited to:
a. Presumptive damages for violation of the Declaration of Covenants;
b. Property damage to the CONDO PROPERTY;
c. Costs to remove the industrial ductwork and repair the CONDO PROPERTY;
d. Diminution in value;
e. The rental value for WAUKEE's use and occupancy of the CONDO
PROPERTY;

f.

Lost access to means of ingress and egress; and,

g. Attorneys' fees.
50.
The Association lacks an adequate remedy at law in that monetary damages are
insufficient to adequately compensate the Association, the CONDO PROPERTY is unique and
the Association is entitled to have the CONDO PROPERTY restored to its prior condition, and
the Association's damages will continue to grow unless and until WAUKEE's wrongful conduct
and breaches are halted.
WHEREFORE, for relief under Count I, the Association seeks damages against
WAUKEE in an amount adequate to compensate the Association for breaching the Declaration
of Covenants, property damage to the CONDO PROPERTY, costs to remove and repair the
industrial ductwork, diminution in value, rental for use and occupancy of the CONDO
PROPERTY, lost access for ingress and egress, all attorneys fees and costs incurred in this
matter, AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF which prohibits WAUKEE from broadcasting
music, voice commands, or other noise at a volume that causes noise from the COMMERCIAL
PROPERTY to reach the ASSOCIATION at a volume that is audible within the CONDO
PROPERTY, to be determined, measured, and monitored by a professional sound engineer, at
WAUKEE's cost, AND
a PERMANENT INJUNCTION which requires WAUKEE to remove the industrial
ductwork and return the CONDO PROPERTY to its former condition, and to either evict
SPROING, or to install soundproofing and engineering controls which restrict WAUKEE from
broadcasting music, voice commands, or other noise from the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY at a
volume that causes the noise to reach the ASSOCIATION at a volume that is audible within the
CONDO PROPERTY to be determined, measured, and monitored by a professional sound
engineer, at WAUKEE's cost.
COUNT II: TRESPASS
For Count II ofits Complaint, the ASSOCIATION seeks relief against WAUKEE,
SPROING, and WATERMARK and states as follows:
51.
The ASSOCIATION incorporates above paragraphs 1-41 as if said allegations
were fully set forth herein.
52.
WAUKEE, SPROING, and WATERMARK entered upon the CONDO
PROPERTY without right or permission when they installed the industrial ductwork.
53.
WAUKEE, SPROING, and WATERMARK continue to occupy the CONDO
PROPERTY without right or permission through the installation of the industrial ductwork and
their refusal to remove the same.

54.
As a direct and proximate result of WAUKEE, SPROING, and WATERMARK's
trespasses as set forth above, the ASSOCIATION has suffered multiple damages, including but
not limited to:
a. Presumptive damages for trespass;
b. Property damage to the CONDO PROPERTY;
c. Costs to remove the industrial ductwork and repair the CONDO PROPERTY;
d. Diminution in value;
e. The rental value for the use and occupancy of the CONDO PROPERTY;
f.

Lost access to means of ingress and egress; and,

g. Attorneys' fees.
55.
The Association lacks an adequate remedy at law in that monetary damages are
insufficient to adequately compensate the Association, the CONDO PROPERTY is unique and
the Association is entitled to have the CONDO PROPERTY restored to its prior condition, and
the Association's damages will continue to grow unless and until the defendants' wrongful
conduct and breaches are halted.
WHEREFORE, for relief under Count II, the Association seeks damages against
WAUKEE, SPROING, and WATERMARK in an amount adequate to compensate the
Association for intruding upon the CONDO PROPERTY, property damage to the CONDO
PROPERTY, costs to remove and repair the industrial ductwork, diminution in value, rental for
use and occupancy of the CONDO PROPERTY, lost access for ingress and egress, all attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in this matter, AND
a PERMANENT INJUNCTION which requires WAUKEE, SPROING, and
WATERMARK to remove the industrial ductwork and return the CONDO PROPERTY to its
former condition, at defendants' cost.
COUNT III: EJECTMENT
For Count III of its Complaint, the ASSOCIATION seeks relief against WAUKEE and
SPROING and states as follows:
56.
The ASSOCIATION incorporates above paragraphs 1-41 as if said allegations
were fully set forth herein.
57.
The ASSOCIATION has the right to possession of the CONDO PROPERTY, to
the exclusion of WAUKEE and SPROING, with the exception of easements that are recognized
by the Declaration of Covenants.
9

..

58.
There is no easement or other property right that grants WAUKEE or SPROING
any right to possession of the areas where WAUKEE and SPROING have wrongfully installed
industrial ductwork and/or the areas of ingress and egress constructively occupied by WAUKEE
and SPROING.
59.
WAUKEE and SPROING unlawfully occupy the areas where WAUKEE and
SPROING have wrongfully installed industrial ductwork and the areas of ingress and egress
constructively occupied by WAUKEE and SPROING.
60.
The ASSOCIATION has been deprived ofthe use and reasonable value of the
areas wrongfully occupied by WAUKEE and SPROING through the installation of industrial
ductwork.
WHEREFORE, the ASSOCIATION prays for this Court to order WAUKEE and
SPROING to remove the industrial ductwork improperly installed by them, to return the
CONDO PROPERTY to its prior condition, and to grant damages and attorneys' fees to the
ASSOCIATION, together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem to be just
and proper.
COUNT IV: NUISANCE
For Count IV of its Complaint, PLAINTIFFS seek relief against WAUKEE, SPROING,
and WATERMARK and state as follows:
61.
The ASSOCIATION incorporates above paragraphs 1-41 as if said allegations
were fully set forth herein.
62.
At regular and repeated intervals, since it began to operate, SPROING has
interfered with Plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property through excessive noise broadcasts
including but not limited to the following:
a. conducting aerobic classes seven days a week, as early as 5:30a.m., and as late
as 8:30p.m.
b. playing dance-club, hip-hop, and other high intensity music at such extreme
volumes that it causes disturbances in the individual units of the CONDO PROPERTY.
c. playing music so loud that the plaintiffs are often able to recognize the songs
and the motivational phrases used by the instructors from their residential units.
d. playing music so loud that smartphone apps can identify the songs.
e. playing music at loud volumes with thumping bass and vibrations that travel
through the walls.

10

f. shouting phrases through microphones that can be heard in the individual units
of the CONDO PROPERTY, such as, "you can do it," "harder.. faster. .. one more," "feel
the bum," and "five more ... four more ... three more ... two more ... one more ... good job,
good job!"
g. broadcasting music and phrases so loud as to interfere with plaintiffs' sleep and
conversations.
h. broadcasting music and phrases so loud as to interfere with plaintiffs' social
plans.
i. broadcasting music and phrases so loud as to prevent plaintiffs from holding
conference calls and/or conducting business from their homes; and,
j. broadcasting music and phrases so loud as to disturb plaintiffs' peaceful
enjoyment of their property.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above endangers plaintiffs'
63.
physical and emotional health and well-being, interferes with their legitimate business and
recreational activities, depresses their property values, offends their senses, and reduces the
quality of their environment.
64.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above have deprived
plaintiffs of sleep, increased their stress, and diminished their quality of life.
65.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above have interfered with
plaintiffs' ability to exercise, practice yoga, meditate, think, and share intimate moments with
their spouses and children.
66.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above have strained
plaintiffs' relationships with one another.
67.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above have caused plaintiffs
to spend less time in their homes, leading to additional expense for meals, travel, hotels, and fuel.
68.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above and the consequential
impacts described herein have caused plaintiffs to suffer diminished productivity in their jobs
and/or school.
69.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts have interfered with plaintiffs' ability to
study, read, and complete projects and/or homework.
70.
SPROING's excessive noise broadcasts as described above have inhibited and
prevented plaintiffs' ability to host guests for daytime visits, meals, or overnight stays.

11

71.
The excessive noise broadcast by SPROING has been facilitated by WAUKEE
and WATERMARK.
72.
The excessive noise broadcast by SPROING has persisted on a regular basis
without abatement, reasonable soundproofing, or efforts to prevent the noise by SPROING,
WAUKEE or WATERMARK despite repeated demands for such remedial measures by the
ASSOCIATION.
73.
The excessive noise broadcast by SPROING is a substantial invasion of plaintiffs'
interest in the use and enjoyment of their property.
SPROING's activities are incompatible with the CONDO PROPERTY and are in
74.
direct violation ofthe Declaration of Covenants.
75.
Defendants, and each of them, will, unless restrained by this Court, continue to
maintain the nuisance and continue the acts complained of, and each and every act has been, and
will be, without the consent, against the will, and in violation ofthe rights of ASSOCIATION
and the individual unit-owner Plaintiffs.
76.
Unless Defendants, and each of them, are enjoined from continuing their course
of conduct, the Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury in that the value of the CONDO
PROPERTY will diminish and the enjoyment of the use of property by the individual unit-owner
Plaintiffs will be unreasonably harmed.
77.
The Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries currently being
suffered in that it will be impossible for the Plaintiffs to determine the precise amount of
damages that they will suffer if Defendants' conduct is not restrained.
78.
In maintaining the nuisance, Defendants, and each of them, are acting with
full knowledge of the consequences and damages being caused to the Plaintiffs, and their
conduct is willful, oppressive and malicious; accordingly, the Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive
damages against Defendants, and each of them.
WHEREFORE, for relief under Count IV, the Plaintiffs seek damages against SPROING,
WAUKEE, and WATERMARK in an amount adequate to compensate Plaintiffs for the direct
and consequential damages caused by their broadcast of offensive noise at excessive volume and
at inappropriate times, exemplary and punitive damages, all attorneys fees and costs incurred in
this matter, AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF which prohibits SPROING, WAUKEE, and
WATERMARK from broadcasting music, voice commands, or other noise at a volume that
causes noise from the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY to reach Plaintiffs at a volume that is
audible within the CONDO PROPERTY, to be determined, measured, and monitored by a
professional sound engineer, at WAUKEE's cost, AND

12

a PERMANENT INJUNCTION which requires WAUKEE and WATERMARK to either

evict SPROING, or for SPROING, WAUKEE, and WATERMARK to install soundproofing and
engineering controls which restrict WAUKEE, SPROING, and WATERMARK from
broadcasting music, voice commands, or other noise from the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY at a
volume that causes the noise to reach the Plaintiffs at a volume that is audible within the
CONDO PROPERTY to be determined, measured, and monitored by a professional sound
engineer, at defendants' cost.
COUNT V: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT TO INVALIDATE LEASE
For Count V of its Complaint, the ASSOCIATION seeks relief against WAUKEE and
SPROING and states as follows:
79.
The ASSOCIATION incorporates above paragraphs 1-41 as if said allegations
were fully set forth herein.
80.
SPROING and WAUKEE claim to have a valid lease granting SPROING asserted
rights in the COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
81.
For the reasons set out above, the SPROJNG lease violates the Declaration of
Covenants, including but not limited to the prohibitions found in provisions 28.1 and 28.2(A)
which prohibit uses that create a nuisance and which require ventilation, respectively.
WHEREFORE, the ASSOCIATION prays for this Court to declare the lease between
WAUKEE and SPROING to be null and void, to demand WAUKEE and SPROING to return the
CONDO PROPERTY to its prior condition, and to grant damages and attorneys' fees to the
ASSOCIATION, together with such other and further relief as this Court may deem to be just
and proper.

13

Respectfully submitted,
THE EUGENIE/WELLS CONDOMINIUM
ASSOCIATION, STEPHAN C. DRAKE, NICOLE H.
DRAKE, MATTHEW A. SCHMALING, RITA W.
SCHMALING, STEPHEN MURRAY, JR., CHRISTINE
MURRAY, andM
EEBERNSTEIN,

Alan L. Farkas
Katherine J. Calhoun
SMITHAMUNDSEN LLC
150 North Michigan
Suite 3300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312) 894-3200, Phone
(312) 894-3210, Fax
atarkas@salawus.com
kcalhoun@salawus.com
and
Constantine G Kaloudis
Kaloudis Law Office P.C.
5901 N Cicero Ave. Suite 306
Chicago IL 60646
312-282-2935
Atty. No. 33825
constantine@kaloudislaw.com

14