The Illinois Supreme Court takes very few civil cases, and it does not usually take one to say “affirmed for the reasons stated.” A leave grant in a case where the appellate court followed the Supreme Court's own recent decision, and where the federal courts and two other Illinois panels agree, is a signal that at least four justices thought the question deserved another look.

That is not a prediction, and we are not going to make one — predicting how the court comes out is exactly the thing this column does not do. What we can say is where an unresolved question of this shape leaves a manager or board.

What Illinois practice looks like right now

Under current law, managers and boards charging Section 22.1 disclosure and paid-assessment-letter fees face no realistic exposure from sellers. The practical ceiling on those fees is the one the amended statute sets, not a litigation risk.

The Illinois Appellate Court reached the same conclusion in 2025 in the related Lieberman Management Services line, affirming dismissal of a Consumer Fraud Act claim over allegedly excessive Section 22.1 disclosure fees. That leaves disclosure-fee complaints with no state-agency enforcer either: the Attorney General brought no association-specific enforcement action in this period, and the Ombudsperson expressly “has no power to enforce any laws or regulations.”

The advice this changes

Do not restructure fee schedules on the assumption that Greenswag is permanent. A management company that raises disclosure fees in reliance on the current rule is taking a position whose legal basis is under review by the court that decides it.

Conversely, a seller's counsel who has been told the claim is foreclosed should be tracking docket 132101 before advising a client that nothing can be done, and should be alert to limitations periods that may run before the decision issues.

Why the legislature's failure compounds this

Two 2026 bills would have settled the fee question by statute and made the litigation largely moot. HB 2648 and HB 5617 would have capped charges at $375 with a CPI escalator, permitted a $100 rush fee for 72-hour turnaround, required an itemized statement of the basis of every fee, and in HB 5617's case required a free owner-accessible records portal. Both died in committee.

So the question that the General Assembly declined to answer in the spring is now before the Supreme Court in the autumn. That sequence is common and it is worth naming: when a legislature does not price a service, a court eventually decides who may complain about the price.

What to watch next

The Illinois Supreme Court's opinion, docket No. 132101. Note also that the record here is a Rule 23 order — whatever the court does, it will produce the first precedential Illinois authority on this question since Channon.