Illinois Compiled Statutes
735 ILCS 5/9-211 (2026)
Service of demand or notice
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/9-211)
(from Ch. 110, par. 9-211)
Sec. 9-211.
Service of demand or notice.
Any demand may be made or notice
served by delivering a
written or printed, or partly written and printed, copy thereof to the
tenant, or by leaving the same with some person of the age
of 13
years or upwards, residing on or in possession of the premises; or by sending a
copy of the notice to the tenant by certified or registered mail, with
a returned receipt from the addressee; and in case no one is in the
actual possession of the premises, then by posting the same on the
premises.
(Source: P.A. 83-355.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: People Ex Rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency, 766 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. 2002).
People Ex Rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 United States Currency, 766 N.E.2d 1084 (Ill. 2002). “See 735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2000). As in the instant matter, the parties in Avdich disputed whether the mere mailing of notice by certified mail constituted service or whether the statute required receipt of the return receipt in order to complete service.”
Am. Mgmt. Consultant, LLC v. Carter, 915 N.E.2d 411 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “" 735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2006). Section 9-211 provides that the notice required in section 9-209 proceedings may be served "by posting the same on the premises" only "in case no one is in the actual possession of the premises.”
Goodwin v. Matthews, 2018 IL App (1st) 172141 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “On appeal, defendant maintains that (1) the order of possession is void because plaintiffs failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for service of a five-day notice according to section 9-211 of the Act ( 735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2016) ), (2) the circuit court erroneously…”
In Re Gant, 201 B.R. 216 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996). “Accordingly, McDonald contends that the service on him was defective as not in compliance with the requirements of 735 ILCS 5/9-211, and termination of the lease was not effective.”
Villa DuBois, LLC v. El, 2020 IL App (1st) 190182 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “¶ 31 Accordingly, we must conclude that the record fails to support the proposition that plaintiff established substantial compliance with section 9-211 of the Act, which requires that a defendant must be served with a demand for possession prior to the filing of an eviction…”
Villa DuBois, LLC v. El, 2020 IL App (1st) 190182 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “¶ 31 Accordingly, we must conclude that the record fails to support the proposition that plaintiff established substantial compliance with section 9-211 of the Act, which requires that a defendant must be served with a demand for possession prior to the filing of an eviction…”
Veseli v. Jusufi, 2024 IL App (5th) 230560-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “¶ 36 We acknowledge Veseli’s claim that the October 27, 2014, “five day demand for rent” documentation constituted newly discovered evidence and also lacked any proof that Frank followed Illinois eviction laws relative to service of this demand (see 735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2012).”
Bryton Props., LLC v. Kids' Work Chicago, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 211350-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “) After a five-day bench trial, the trial court entered judgment for Kids’ Work, finding that the Delaware LLCs failed to present evidence showing service of the written demand notices (“five-day notice”), as required under section 9-211 of the Eviction Act (735 ILCS 5/9-211…”
Figueroa v. Deacon (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “DISCUSSION On appeal, Kathryn contends the judgment order is void because Figueroa failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for service of a demand or notice pursuant to section 9-211 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2008)) and the trial court had no jurisdiction.”
Gu v. Neely, 2023 IL App (3d) 220316-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2023). “See also 735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2022) (stating “[a]ny demand may be made or notice served by delivering a written or printed *** and in case no one is in the actual possession of the premises, then by posting the same on the premises”). The trial court concluded that Gu was not…”
Tsatsanis v. MacDonald, 2024 IL App (1st) 231282-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2022). As we noted in Prairie Management Corp.”
People v. Cole, 2026 IL App (1st) 250040 (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “As the parties discussed the question, the judge read the Illinois statute on service (735 ILCS 5/9-211 (West 2024)). Cole again accused the judge of “rubber stamping,” saying “whatever [counsel] says, [the judge] agree[s] with it.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|