Fandel v. Allen

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Illinois » 3rd District Appellate » 2010 » Fandel v. Allen

Fandel v. Allen

State: Illinois

Court: 3rd District Appellate

Docket No: 3-08-0237 Rel

Case Date: 01/14/2010

Preview:No. 3-08-0237 ______________________________________________________________________________ Filed January 14, 2010 CORRECTION IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2010 ______________________________________________________________________________ DAVID W. FANDEL, Individually and d/b/a Fandel Construction, ) Appeal from the Circuit Court ) of the 13th Judicial Circuit ) Bureau County, Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellant, ) ) No. 07-CH-91 v. ) ) TIFFANY ALLEN, ) Honorable ) Cornelius J. Hollerich, Defendant-Appellee. ) Judge Presiding. ______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE McDADE delivered the opinion of the court: ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff, David Fandel, doing business as Fandel Construction, performed construction work for defendant, Tiffany Allen, on defendant's home. After the project was complete, plaintiff recorded a "claim for lien" and commenced suit to foreclose the lien after defendant stopped payment on the check she tendered in payment of the services. Plaintiff now appeals from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of defendant. We reverse and remand. FACTS In July 2007, defendant contacted plaintiff and requested that plaintiff submit a bid to replace the roof on her home. Plaintiff inspected the roof. The day after his inspection, plaintiff

tendered a written, itemized work order to defendant for her consideration. Plaintiff did not provide defendant with a copy of a consumer rights brochure prepared by the Attorney General's office. The work order specified the work to be done, the materials to be used, and the total cost of $9,581 to complete the work. The work order was not signed by defendant. Instead, defendant merely advised plaintiff to proceed in accordance with the itemized work order. The job was completed August 1, 2007, and defendant tendered a check to plaintiff pursuant to the work order plus $100 for a change defendant requested, thereby totaling $9,681. Defendant subsequently stopped payment on the check. Plaintiff filed a "claim for a mechanic's lien" in the recorder's office of Bureau County. On October 17, 2007, plaintiff commenced a suit to foreclose the lien. Defendant filed a response and a motion for summary judgment arguing that plaintiff's failure to comply with sections 20(a) and 30 of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act (Home Repair Act) (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq. (West 2006)) barred him from asserting a lien upon her property. Upon hearing argument, the trial court granted defendant's motion, thus denying plaintiff any payment for the work he had done. ANALYSIS Plaintiff appeals the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary judgment. The sole issue in this appeal is whether plaintiff's failure to comply with sections 20(a) and 30 of the Home Repair Act (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq. (West 2006)) bars him from asserting a mechanics' lien upon defendant's property. Principles of statutory construction dictate that the language of a statute be given its plain and ordinary meaning. First Bank & Trust Co. of O'Fallon v. King, 311 Ill. App. 3d 1053, 10582

59, 726 N.E.2d 621, 625 (2000). When the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, the court should not add exceptions, limitations, or conditions that the legislature did not express. First Bank, 311 Ill. App. 3d at 1059, 726 N.E.2d at 625. A court should interpret a statute as a whole so that no term is rendered superfluous or meaningless. Texaco-Cities Service Pipeline Co. v. McGaw, 182 Ill. 2d 262, 270, 695 N.E.2d 481, 485 (1998). The standard of review for both statutory construction and summary judgment is de novo. Swavely v. Freeway Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 298 Ill. App. 3d 969, 976, 700 N.E.2d 181, 187 (1998); Sears Roebuck & Co. v. Acceptance Insurance Co., 342 Ill. App. 3d 167, 171, 793 N.E.2d 736, 739 (2003). We begin by setting out the pertinent sections of the Home Repair Act in their entirety. Section 20(a) of the Home Repair Act states: "

Download Fandel v. Allen.pdf