This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.