Songer ‘unctstoaie eon eters s20nm en WT cmcurr counro# cook county, LiiNoIs Saas hw DIVISION PULSE MUNICIPAL DIS FMCE DARLENE SIMMONS, ) Pisin } casero, 20791012865 ) ¥, }) Demand: $221,329.68 }) plus costs and atomey’s fees (CANDACE CLARK, ) ) Defendant } MPL Plaintiff; DARLENE SIMMONS, by and through her stiomeys atthe Center for Disability & Elder Law (CDEL), for her complaint against the Defendant, CANDACE CLARK, states a follows: PARTIES (Plain or “Ms. Simmons") is a 62-year-old woman who resides at 7380 8. Carpenter Sect, Chia, lino 60621 2. Tothe best oft: knowledge and belief of Ms, Simmons, during 2014 and a all times up to and including he fling ofthis Complaint, Candace Clark (the “Defendant” was and is ‘a resident of Cock County, Iinois.On information and belief, Defendant's current ‘addres is $801 West 90th Place, Oak Lawn, Hinds, 60453-1509, SURI ICTION AN 3._ Jurisdiction is proper inthis Court because Ms. Simmons and Defendant both reside in Minis. 4. Venue is proper this Court as the events giving rise to this use of aetion oveurred in Cook County, nos. BACKGROUND, 5. Over the period of March 2014 to October 2015, Defendant deceived Ms. Simmons into providing Defendant with $73,776.86 es purported investments in real property andrelated charges, and a deposit fora wedding venue, Defendant falsely represented herself 1s a member of he realestate business. Ms. Simmons reeived nothing from Defendant in exchange for ter money. 6. Defendant contacted Ms. Simmons in or around March 2014 to join Ms. Simmons's chapter ofthe O-vder ofthe Eastem Star, a masonie group, of which Ms. Simmons is secretary, 7. As part of her secretarial duties, Ms, Simmons interviewed Defendant, who represented she was intrested in joining Ms. Simmons's chapter ofthe Order ofthe Baste Star, 8. During their conversation, Defendant told Ms, Simmons that she was a paralegal, that she ‘owned at least eight (8) buildings, and that she helped others purchase property 9. In response, Ms, Simmons shared with Defendant her intention to purchase athree-flat building outside ofthe Englewood area due to various safety concerns, 10, Although Ms, Sinmons was aleady working with areal esate agent, Defendant suggested she coald help Ms, Simmons find a building that was already remodeted and _movesin ready. The properties Ms, Simmons’s agent showed Ms. Simmons were in need of repair and ve not in bette or safer neighborhoods than where Ms. Simmons was aleady living. ‘A. Defendant Defrauded Ms. Simmons into Providing Defendant $65,776.56 for ‘Purchasing and Securing Real Property in Which Defendant Had No Real Interest or Control. Defendant beganher scheme by requesting funds of Ms. Simmons under the guise of | ‘conducting real estate transactions on Ms. Simmons's behalf 12, Inher spurious search fora new home, Defendant showed Ms. Simmons a number of properties. 13. Defendant told Ms. Simmons she needed money in her bank account in ordet to purchase property, so on March 25, 2014, Ms Simmons made e cashier's check to Defendant, “Candace Clark," for $5,500.00, labelled "Deposit" (Exhibit A). Ms, Simmons provided her daughter, Michelle Simmons, funds to pay Defendant by depositing funds into Michelle Siramors's count, 14, Defendant persisted her exploitation by showing Ms. Simmons atwo-flat building with basement units lo:ated at 6024S. Calumet, Chicago, Iinois 60637 (the “Calumet Page 2 of 11Property”). Defendant requested that Ms. Simmons submit a total of $3,484.00 to secure the Calumet Property for purchase: $600 for an inspection (Exhibit By; $242.00 for 2 second inspection (Exhibit C); and $2,642.00 for insurance (Exhibit ©) 15, After three monhs of waiting for the Calumet Property to become unoccupied and available to purchase, Ms, Simmons decided to look further. Ms. Simmons roveived nothing from Defendant in ret for her $3,484.00, 16. Thereafter, Defendant continued her deceit. On or ound June 11, 2014, Ms. Simmons ‘withdrew $300.00 for Defendant to support her search, (Exhibit D. 17. After more fauculeat searching, Ms. Simmons and Defendant (the “Paris”) settled on a building located at 6201 S. California, Chicago, Mlinois 69629 (the “California Property”). Defendant falsely told Ms, Simmons she knew the contractor who owned the building, and she would work out a deal with him, 18. Under the guise of securing the California Property, Defendant requested $18,050.00 from Ms, Simmens for the following payments: ‘a April 18,2014 cashier's check to Defendant for $5,250.00 (Exhibit); June 10,2014 cashier's check to Defendant for $7,500.00 (Exhibit C), June 11,2014 cashier's check to Defendant for $300.00 (Exhibit E); and 4. July 22, 2018 cashier's check to Letendant for $5,000.00 (Exhibit E), 19, Throughout the rrocess of allegedly looking for propecty on Ms. Simmons's behalf, Defendant requested a number of other money payments from Ms, Simmons, Mi ‘Simmons issued nine (9) cashier's checks to Defendant totaling $22,192.86 forthe following: 8. Fumiture (Exhibit A); Storage fees (Exhibits FG); “Lawyer fee" Exhibit 4. Another inspection (Exhibit E)s “(RJemsining balance on house/renovation” (Exhibit G) (1) stove and (2) retigerators” Exhibit P) “(louse 3,986.00 stovelref house foes for lawyer (2) LLC (Exhibit I) and (One cashier's check made out to Defendant did not have a description listed inthe ‘memo line. (Exhibit P), Page 3 0f 11: 5 20, In furtherance of her abuse, Defendant told Ms. Simmons that ber frend owned 2 residential property on West 95th Street and South Lowe Avenue (“95th and Lowe") in Chicago and wanted to move. Specifically, Defendant claimed her fiend would transfer ‘the property to snyone who financed the necessary repairs and change of ttle forthe property thereater, 95th and Love would become «renal property, andthe transferee could receive the rental proceeds as income, 21, In elance on this statement, on around March 17, 2015, Ms, Simmons provided Defendant $350 00 cash o purchase two Furnaces ~ supposedly and conveniently owmed by one of Defendant's fiends ~ to put into the property on 95th and Lowe, (Exhibit 22. Later in 2015, Defendant told Ms. Simmons she did not want her husband tobe involved inher business, 0 she requested that Ms, Simmons pay her in cash instead of cashier's checks 23, Inraliane onthe above request, Ms, Simmons paid $900.00 cash to Defendant fo the following ) faite that Defendant claimed was in storage ad that was to be wsed foe (6201 S,Califorsia once Ms. Simmons moved into the building; 2) insurance on 6201S. California; and) repairs and fixtures for 95th and Lowe. Exhibit, 24, Aditoaly in liance onthe request fr cash instead of eases checks, M. Simmons made withdrawals fr Detendat ting $23,000.00 (Ext KL). Hom these cash witha, $8,000.00 went towards Ms, Simmonss daughters wedding, es will be describe in Background, Section B below. 25, Ths, in reliance on Defendant's faudolent statements, Defendant induced Ms Simmons to provide her wth ttl of $65,776.56 to secure property ouside ofthe Englewood neighborhood. Defendant Defrauded Ms. Simmons nto Providing Defendant $8,000.00 ‘Cash Under the Guise of Obtaining a Wedding Venue for Ms, Simmons's Daughter. 26, During the ime the Panties interacted, Ms, Simon's daughter, Michelle Simmons {Mishell” got engaged and planned to mary in October 2015. Finding another opporunity to exploit Ms, Simmons, Defendant continued to deceive and defiaud he by fraudulelly claiming o have connection witha wedding Venue and requested Page 4of 112, 2, 2, 30, 31 22 2 34 3s. 8,000.00 in cash from Ms, Simmons, for which Defendant filed to provide any Specifically, De‘endant claimed her fhiend “Kathy” could get a discount at Michelle's top ‘venue choice, namely Chateau Bu-Sché, 11535 S. Cicero Avenue, Alsip, Ilinais 60803 (hereinafter the “Venue”), Defendant contacted the Venue on behalf Ms, Simmons and Michelle. The Venue responded to DeXendant via email on October 28, 2014, (Exhibit M), Although Michele daughter met with individuals from the Venue, Defendant claimed only she could make the reservation and payment to get he alleged discount, Defendant received the contract from the Venue on March 18, 2015. (Exhibit N). Defendant only ever showed Ms. Simmons an unsigned contract. (Exhibit 0) Ms. Simmons pad Defendant $8,000.00 cash as a deposit for the Venve. (Exhibit L). ‘Two weeks before the wedding, Defendant made excuses as to why the Venue had not ‘confirmed with Ms. Simmons and her daughter. ‘One week before the wedding, Michelle called the Venve directly. The Venue informed her that Defendant never made payment, and that no one named “Kathy” worked there. As aresult of Defendant's deceit, Ms. Simmons and Michelle aranged a makeshift “weeiding in a church banquet hall, causing Ms. Simmons to incur additionsl costs othe {$8,000.00 already wasted on false contact with Defendant, and disappointing Michell, ‘who had been prevented from hosting her wedding at her dream venue. However, Defendant continued to unabashedly defraud Ms. Simmons and act es if she had made paymeat tothe Venue. In furtherance of her fraud, took Ms. Simmons to “Kathy's” home and told Ms. Simmons that she needed to sign paperwork to be reimbursed from the Venue. Defendant and “Kathy” fraudulently told Ms, Simmons she ‘would only be reimbursed $7,000.00 because there was a $1,000.00 charge for cancelling the venue ~a clear fabrication asthe Venue leary it was never paid by Defendant Asa inal insult, Defendant wrote a check (undated) to Ms. Simmons inthe amount of {57,200.00 fora “sefund” (Exhibit P); tis check bounced. Ms. Simmons's many recovery tempts have been ftile Page Sof ItC. In Total Defendant Defrauded Ms. Simmons of $73,776.56 136. As ofthe filing of this Complain, the Defendant fraxdulently received $73,776.56 from Ms, Simmons: $65,776.56 fom her real estate fraud and $8,000.00 from her wedding Venue fraud, [37 All money Ms. Simmons paid to Defendant was inthe form of eash or cashier's checks removed from her IP. Morgan 401K retirement account, As a result of Defendant's fraud, this account has been completely liquidated. 38. As of July 14,2014, Ms. Simmons is unemployed. She is living on $1,800.00 per month: $1,400.00 from Social Security Retirement, and $400.00 fiom her Chicago Tribune pension. Her daughter and her three grandchildren, ages two (2) nine (9), and sixteen, Live with her. (COUNT I: FINANCIAL EXPLOITATION OF AN ELDERLY PERSON IN VIOLATION OF 720 [LLCS 5/17-56 39, Ms. Simmons repeats and re-alleges Paragraphs 1-38 ofthis complaint as though fly set forth herein 40, Under linois la «person commits financial exploitation of an elderly person when she “stands in a positon of trust or confidence with the elderly person..{and she) knowingly and by deception or intimidation obtains control over the property ofan elderly person...oF uses he assets or resources ofan elderly person..." 720 ILCS S/17-56(a). 5/17-$6(a), a person committing financial 41. In seeking a lam pursuant to 720 IL exploitation of an elderly person may be civilly lsble to the victim in “damages of treble the amount ofthe value ofthe property obtined, plus reasonable attorey fees and court costs." 720 ILCSS/17-56(). 42, Further, Subsection () of 720 ILCS $/17-S6 states that a prosecuting attomey fora criminal ation may freeze the asses of the defendant fa persons charged with financial exploitation of an elderly person [fr taking property valued al] more than $5,000, a prosecuting attomey may fle a petition, .0 freeze the assets of the defendant in an amount equal to but not greater than the alleged value of lost or stolen propery in the defendant's pending «ximinal proceeding for purposes of restitution tothe victim. 720 ILCS 5/17- 564). Page 6of Lt43, Ms, Simmons tuned 60 years of age on June 7, 2014 44 Defendant gained Ms. Simmons's trust and confidence when she heftiended Ms. ‘Simmons as an interested member ofthe Order of the Eastern Star, Defendant further ‘engendered tis rust when she represented to Ms, Simmons that she was in @ legal ‘position to engage in realestate transactions on Ms, Simmons's behalf. 45, Acconding to the linois Supreme Cour, a fiduciary relationship may develop as & matter ‘of aw, or “it may be moral, socal, amestc or even personal in its origin.” ik Hagen, 410 Il. 158, 163, 101 N.E.24 585, 587 (1951), To determine whether a fiduciary relationship exised, a court may look to whether the principal was dependent onthe agent for eating Zor his personal needs or transaction his personal and financial affairs, Nemeth. Banhclmi, 125M. App. 34 938, 96, 466 N.B.24 977, 995 (Ist Dist. 1984), 446. Ms. Simmons placed significant trust and confidence in Defendant, and became dependent upon her for securing rel estate and other transactions related to her financial and personal afr, resulting inthe formation ofa fiduciary relationship with Defendant. 47. Defendant, knowingly and by deception, obtained contol over Ms. Simmons's money by snaking false promises and pretending to hve Ms, Simmons's best interests at hear. 48. Specifically, Defendant knowingly deceived Ms. Simmons when she 1. Praadulently represented that she had the legal capacity to negotiate the sale ofthe various properties and repeatedly approached Ms. Simmons for :morey elated to securing and improving sad properties, although she knew she had no interest or right to control sid properties; ’. Induced Ms, Simmons to pay $65,776.56 to her for said properties, and tained contol of sui funds; Fraudulently represented that she had friend “Kathy” who worked atthe ‘Venue and who would be able to secure a discount forthe Venue: and 4. Induced Ms. Simmons to pay $8,000.00 to er for the Venue, and gained contol of said funds, WHEREFORE, Pisin, Darlene Simmons, prays for judgment agains the Defendant under this Count fr () damages in the amount of three times the monies pad to Defendant by (Ms. Simmons per 720 ILCS 5/17-S6(h); i) reasonable sttomey fees and court costs inched in ‘bringing this action; and if) any other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate Page 7of 1i (COUNT II: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION 49, Ms. Simmons repeats ad e-lleges Paragraphs 1-48 of this complaint as though fully set forth herein 50. In llinois, the elzments for fraudulent mistepresentation are “(1 false statement ofa material fact (2) known or believed tobe false by the party making it (3) intent to induce the other party to act; (8) action bythe other party in reliance on the tah of the statement; and (3) damage to the ober party resulting from such reliance.” Soules v. Gen. [Motors Corp., 79 I 24.282, 286, 402.N.E.24 599, 601 (1980). Further, the other party's reliance on the statement must be justified 1 51. inst, Defendant made a false statement of material fact when she told Ms. Simmons she ‘would be able tosssst her in conducting transactions that would lead to the purchase of realestate, Additionally, she made a false statement of material fact when she told Ms. Simmons she hada connection, namely “Kathy,” at Chateau Bu-Sché sues that she could secure a discoun: for Michelle's wedding venue, 52, Second, Defendent new these statements were false because she didnot own the property, have legitimate access tothe property or have any form of control over the property such tht she could facilitate or negotite a sale ofthe property. Defendant also ‘know that she made up the individual named “Kathy” and that she didnot have a ‘connection with the Venue 53, Third, Defendan: knowingly and purposefully made these statements to induce Ms ‘Simmons to provide Defendant money in order to secure the property and the Venue for the wedding. ‘54 Although i emsins lino law that a promise to perform an act withthe present {tention not to perform is insufficient to constitute fraud (Roda v: Berko, 401 I 335, 40, 81 N.E.24 812 (1949), there is an exception when a false promise of future conduct is the mechanism or scheme by which the defendant will accomplish the fraud. Baker, Bourgeois & Assocs, »: Taylor, 841 App. 34909, 914, 410 NE-24 55,60 (1980). ‘55, Fourth, Ms, Simmons infact detrimentally relied on Defendants statements when she acted upon Defesdant's promises and provided $66,726 56 to purchase or otherwise secure property outside ofthe Englewood neighborhood and secure her daughter's dream wedding venue. Page 8 of 11i WHEREFORE, Ms, Simmons prays judgment against the Defendant under this Count {for(i etum ofall monies pid to Defendant by Ms. Simmons; (i) reasonable attomey fees and court costs inctuded in bringing this action; and (i) any other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate cor BREACH OF ILLINOIS REAL, SEACT ‘56, Ms. Simmons hereby incorporates parapraps 15S of his complaint as though flly set forth herein 57, Pursuant to Secton 1-10 of the Real Estate License Act of 2000, areal estate “broker” defined as a person her than a Teasing agent who...for another and for compensation, or with the intention expectation of receiving compensation, ether directy or indirectly (Q) Offer: to sel, exchange, purchase, rent, of lease real estate; (3) Negotats, offers, atempls, or agrees 10 negotiate the Sale, exchange, purchase, renal or Teasing of eal estate... (7) Adverises or represents himself or herself as being engaged nthe business oF buying, selling, exchanging, renting, or leasing real estate; (8) Assists or direts in procuring or referring of leads or prospects, intended to result in the sale, exchange, leas, or renal of real estate; (9) Assists or directs in the negotiation of any transaction imtendd to result in the sale, exchange, lease, or reatal of real esate..." 225 ILCS 454/1-10 ‘58, Under Section 1-10 ofthe Real Estate License Act, compensation is defined as “the valuable consideration given by one person or entity to another person or entity in ‘exchange forthe performance of some activity or servie.” 225 ILCS 4541-10, 59, In the past, the Iinois Appellate Court discussed the distinction between a “broker” and “finder” of real estate, Kilhane v. Dyas, 3 1, App. 34439, 440, 337 N.E-24 217, 219 (@nd Dist. 1975), As examined by the court in Kilbane »: Dyas, some cours define & “finder” as an “intermediary who contracts to find and bring the parties together but ‘eaves the negotition and ultimate transaction tothe principals.” Id. (discussing Biter +, Americar Marieta Co.,162 F.Supp. 486, 488 (F.D- Il 1958). (60. Overtime, the Hinois Appellate Court expanded the definition of “broker” to include functions typically categorized as functions ofthe “finder,” such that a person will construed asa broker even if he functions performed fall short of actual negotiations on Page 9 of 11: i & # 6 a 65, 66, 67 68, ‘the part ofthe pincipal. Thomas v. Daubs, 291 Ill. App. 3d 682, 690, 684NE,2d 1011, 1015 (Sth Dist. 1997) (*Morcover, the law is quite clear in Ilinois that finder involved inthe sale of realestate mus satisfy the licensing requirements of the Act.) Regardless of whether Defendant was a licensed broker under the Real Estate License Act, her actions fll within the Real Estate License Act and she established an agency relationship witk Ms, Simmons. Furber, Section5-15() ofthe Real Estate License Act provides: “[]tis unlawful for aay person...10 at asa managing broker, broker, or leasing agent or to advertise or assume to act as such mansging broker, broker or leasing agent without a propery issued sponsor card or a license issued under this Act by the Department, either diretly or through its authorized desiges.” 225 ILCS 454/5-15(0). ‘A person acting asa heoker under the Real Estate License Acti an agent "agency! means a relationship in which a broker or licensee, whether directly or through an aflated licensee, represents a consumer by the consumer's consent, \whether express or implied, ins real property transaction, 225 ILCS 454/5-10 Inan action brought in breach of an agency relationship under the Real Estate License Act of 2000, “the court may, ints discretion, award only actual damages and court costs for grant injunctive relief, when appropriate.” 225 TLCS 434/15-70(a, Defendant told Ms, Simmons that she ovined a leas eight (8) buildings, and that she helped others purchase property. As such, she represented that she was engaged inthe business of buying, selling, or exchanging real property. Defendant fraudulently led Ms. Simmons ina seach of real estate, offering numerous prospective properties, to induce Ms. Simmons to give her more money. ‘Moreover, Defendant repeatedly offered fo negotiate the sale of various eal estate to Ms Simmons, including but not limited tothe Calumet Property, the California Property, and 95thand Lowe, wsing these offers asa way to exploit money from Ms. Simmons Defendant is nota licensed broker. In offering to negotiate the sale, or act asa finder, of real estate to Ms. Simmons, Defendant has violated the Real Estate License Act of 2000. Page 10011WHEREFORE, Ms. Simmons prays judgment against the Defendant under this Count fr (9 actual damages inthe form of monies paid to Defendant by Ms. Simmons; (i) court costs included in bringing this action; and (ii) any ther relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate. \ ‘By: One of Pisintif's Atiomeys Mark Hellner Thomas Wendt Center for Disability & 2Ider Law ‘Attomeys for Ms, Simons Attomey No. 35859 205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60606 312-376-1880 >ecxind@etionnone, mheliner@cdelaw.org court@edelaw.org VERIFICATION 1, Darlene Simmons, under the penalties of perjury as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, eerify that the statements st fort in this instrument are trus and comect, except as tothe ater therein stated to be based on information and belief and as to such matters, [eer asaforesaid that I verily believe the same tobe tue, correct and complete ‘arfene Simmons Page 11 of 1WHEREFORE, Ms, Simmons prays judgment against the Defendant under his Count for) actual damages inthe form of monies pai to Defendant by Ms Simmons; i) our ests inched in bringing this action; and (i) any ther elie the Court deems necessary and sppropriat Wi of Plains Anomays Elise Diane Robie Center for Disability & Elder Law Attoroeys for Ms. Simmons “Attomey No, 35859 208 W. Rendeiph Stee, Suite 1610 Chicago, TL 60606, 5123761880 stobie@edel ore VERIFICATION 1, Darlene Simmons, under the penalties of perjury as provided by la pursuant to Section 1-109, ‘ofthe Code of Civil Provedure, cerfy thatthe statements st forth in his instrument are tae and comect, except asto the matters therein stated fo be based on informatin and belief and as to such matters, I certify a afoesud that erly believe the same tobe tu, comtect aud complete hiib Wb Darlene SiIN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS LAW DIVISION DARLENE SIMMONS, ) ) Plains, ) Case No, ) v ) ) CANDACE CLARK, ) ) Defendant ) EIDAVIT PI oT TO ILLINOIS $1 COURT RULE Pursuant to llinois Suprene Court Rule 222(t), and under penalty of perjury, counsel forthe shove-named Plaintiff cetifes that Plaintiff seeks money damages in excess of Fifly Thousand Dots ($50.00) ARE anne Center for Disability & Eller Low ‘Mark Hellner Attomeys for Ms, Simmons Attomey No. 35859 205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1610 Chicago, TL. 60606 312-376-1880 mbellnen@cdelaworg coun@esdelaw ore ‘This instrument was acknewledged before me on_I1=21-1] __ (ate) by Sephans Kiditla | (ame of Asian, STATE OFILLINOIS. ss, pare. “OFFICIAL SEAL” NEN Oe Coors TREKEAR SSAC Onarda, B bvsndases Signature of notary pobre ‘sea Noto Pts, Sato ois etna Cene 1 St22