People v. Perry

864 N.E.2d 196 (2007)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D, along with his wife and children, occupied a suite at the Embassy Suites Hotel. After staying at the hotel for several weeks, D sought to negotiate a reduced rate for the room. He also requested that the cost of his stay be billed to a company of which he was the president, Prolific Development Corporation (Prolific). He provided several trade references and a credit card in the name of Bryan Green. The agreement provided for a rate of $130 per night for a two-room suite, with a minimum stay of 100 nights 'on an annual basis.' Both parties signed the agreement. Four bills sent to the business address with no response and the hotel's controller slid a letter under D's hotel room door. The letter noted that payment was more than 60 days past due and that the balance on the account was over $12,000. D did not respond. The con was eventually revealed with returned mail and denials from any of the trade references. Of course, D strung the hotel along with post office problems and payment was coming any day now assurances. Police became involved. During the night shift on May 13, 2000, D and his family vacated the hotel room without checking out or settling the bill. The unpaid balance for the room, restaurant, laundry services, telephone, and other charges exceeded $15,000. The real Bryan Green disputed the charges the hotel tried to put on this credit card. D was indicted for theft by deception 'of property exceeding $10,000 and not exceeding $100,000 in value.' D remained free on bond but failed to appear on January 9, 2001. The following month, he was taken into custody in Georgia. He was returned to Illinois in April 2001. D was convicted of the theft and sentenced accordingly. The court of appeals reversed in that a hotel room was not property and D could only be found guilty for the value of the tangible items he stole, which was $300 and conviction of class 3 offense. The court noted that 'at common law, only tangible personal property could be the subject of larceny.' P appealed. P argues that the right to occupy a hotel room is property because the leasehold interest created by renting a hotel room is a chattel, which falls under the common law definition of property that has been incorporated into section 15-1.