72 F.4^th 353 (D.C. Circ. 2023)

In Atlas Asset Management v. Kang, 2025 IL App (1st) 242311, the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed whether the circuit court erred in finding tenant Alvin Kang in breach of an agreed order with his landlord, Atlas Asset Management, and entering a $75,000 judgment against him without holding an evidentiary hearing.

Atlas had filed an eviction action for unpaid rent. The parties later entered into an agreed order requiring Kang to (1) pay $30,000, and (2) vacate the premises by a specified date (or pay additional monthly sums). The order provided that failure to comply would result in an immediate order of possession and a $75,000 judgment.

At a compliance hearing, the circuit court found Kang in breach and entered judgment for $75,000 without taking evidence. Kang argued that he had paid the required amounts and moved out on time, and that any delay in returning the keys was either immaterial or impossible due to lack of instructions. The appellate court held that factual disputes existed regarding compliance and that the trial court erred by resolving those disputes without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reversed the orders, vacated the $75,000 judgment, and remanded for further proceedings.

Takeaways:

The court reaffirmed that an agreed order is treated as a contract between the parties. Disputes over compliance may involve factual issues such as material breach, substantial performance, or impossibility — not just legal interpretation.

When parties dispute material facts—such as whether a tenant materially breached an agreement—the court must allow evidence to be presented. The trial court erred by deciding the issue based solely on attorneys’ arguments without hearing testimony or reviewing evidence.

A plaintiff must prove breach and entitlement to relief by a preponderance of the evidence. In this matter, entering a $75,000 judgment without any evidentiary basis violated due process principles.