Central Illinois Elec. Svcs. v. Slepian

• Decision Date: 04 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 3-04-0548.,3-04-0548.
• Citation: 831 N.E.2d 1169
• Parties: CENTRAL ILLINOIS ELECTRICAL SERVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant and Appellee, v. Harvey A. SLEPIAN and Rosalee J. Slepian, Defendants and Counter-plaintiffs and Appellants.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

831 N.E.2d 1169

CENTRAL ILLINOIS ELECTRICAL SERVICES, L.L.C., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant and Appellee, v. Harvey A. SLEPIAN and Rosalee J. Slepian, Defendants and Counter-plaintiffs and Appellants.

No. 3-04-0548.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

June 23, 2005.

Rehearing Denied August 4, 2005.

Robert M. Riffle (argued), Janaki Nair, Elias, Meginnes, Riffle & Seghetti, P.C., Peoria, for Harvey A. Slepian.

Jeffrey E. Krumpe (argued), Miller, Hall & Triggs, Peoria, for Central Illinois Electrical Services, L.L.C.

Justice O'BRIEN delivered the opinion of the court:

The plaintiff, Central Illinois Electrical Services (CIES), filed a complaint to foreclose a mechanic's lien against the defendants, Harvey and Rosalee Slepian, alleging the Slepians had failed to pay to CIES $14,000 for labor and materials CIES provided the Slepians under an oral contract for electrical work on their property. CIES later added counts for recovery based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The Slepians alleged in affirmative defense that because CIES violated the Home Repair and Remodeling Act (the Act) (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq. (West 2002)), the oral contract for services was void and therefore, could not form the basis of recovery under a mechanic's lien. The Slepians filed their own complaint alleging breach of the Act, violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (the Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002)), violations of the Home Repair Fraud Act (815 ILCS 515/1 et seq. (West 2002)), and unjust enrichment. They later amended their complaint to include claims for breach of contract. The Slepians sought relief from the mechanic's lien, return of the money they had paid to CIES or, in the alternative, relief from any further payment to CIES. The trial court found in favor of CIES with respect to the mechanic's lien, dismissed CIES's additional counts as moot, and either dismissed or, following a bench trial, denied all of the Slepians' counts. The Slepians appeal the trial court's rulings and CIES cross-appeals, alleging the trial court erred in failing to award CIES attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.

FACTS

CIES recorded a mechanic's lien against the Slepians' property in the amount of $14,000. CIES alleged the Slepians refused to pay for labor and materials CIES provided the Slepians under an oral contract for electrical work on their property. CIES filed a complaint to foreclose the lien and later added counts for recovery based on unjust enrichment and quantum meruit. The Slepians alleged in affirmative defense that because CIES violated the Act (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq. (West 2002)), the oral contract for services was void and therefore could not form the basis of recovery under a mechanic's lien. The Slepians filed their own complaint alleging breach of the Act, violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002)), violations of the Home Repair Fraud Act (815 ILCS 515/1 et seq. (West 2002)), and unjust enrichment. They later amended their complaint to include claims for breach of contract. Several of the Slepians' counts were dismissed prior to a bench trial.

The record of the proceedings reveals the following. In the year 2000, the Slepians embarked on a home remodeling project. Over a two-year period they spent approximately $1 million in renovation costs. From October 2000 to June 25, 2002, CIES provided services in the form of electrical work to the Slepians. CIES was the second electrical contractor to perform electrical services on the project. The first electrical contractor billed the Slepians in excess of $15,000. Over the course of a 19-month period, CIES billed the Slepians a total of $57,375 for electrical work. The Slepians received and paid the invoices on a monthly basis. The Slepians refused to pay the final invoice of $14,000. There was testimony at trial indicating the Slepians did not provide CIES with any particular plans, job specifications, or architectural drawings for the renovation project. There was also testimony that Rosalee Slepian required numerous changes in the scope and detail of the electrical work and that electrical projects had to be redone at her behest. Other testimony was offered to indicate that CIES's charges for the electrical work were excessive. It is undisputed that before beginning work for the Slepians, CIES did not provide a written estimate of the proposed work.

The trial court found in favor of CIES with respect to the mechanic's lien, dismissed CIES's additional counts as moot and denied all of the Slepians' counts. The Slepians appeal the trial court's ruling and CIES cross-appeals, arguing the trial court erred in failing to award attorney fees to CIES.

ANALYSIS

The Slepians' first argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding CIES entitled to a mechanic's lien. The Slepians assert that because CIES violated the Act, CIES does not have a valid contract upon which to base a mechanic's lien.

Section 15 of the Act states, in part:

"Prior to initiating home repair or remodeling work for over $1,000, a person engaged in the business of home repair or remodeling shall furnish to the customer for signature a written contract or work order that states the total cost, including parts and materials listed with reasonable particularity and any charge for an estimate." 815 ILCS 513/15 (West 2002).

Section 30 of the Act states, in part:

"It is unlawful for any person engaged in the business of home repairs and remodeling to remodel or make repairs or charge for remodeling or repair work before obtaining a signed contract or work order over $1,000." 815 ILCS 513/30 (West 2002).

The Act also expresses the policy statement that "in order to safeguard the life, health, property, and public welfare of its citizens, the business of home repair and remodeling is a matter affecting the public interest." 815 ILCS 513/5 (West 2002).

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, 1058-59, 244 Ill.Dec. 646, 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, 244 Ill.Dec. 646, 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, 230 Ill.Dec. 991, 695 N.E.2d 481, 485 (1998). The standard of review for statutory construction is de novo. Swavely v. Freeway Ford Truck Sales, Inc., 298 Ill.App.3d 969, 976, 233 Ill.Dec. 80, 700 N.E.2d 181, 187 (1998).

In the present case it is undisputed there was no written estimate provided by CIES to the Slepians. CIES does not dispute that when CIES began work for the Slepians, the anticipated costs were over $1,000. CIES asserts that because another electrical contractor preceeded CIES on the project, CIES did not "initiate" the remodeling work. CIES further argues it was impossible to provide an estimate of the total costs because the Slepians were constantly changing the scope and therefore the cost of the project.

CIES's interpretation of the "initiation" clause of the Act is strained and does not comport with a plain reading of the statute. Section 15 plainly contemplates that any person engaged in the business of home remodeling or repair, when beginning work on a project that will exceed $1,000 in cost, must provide to the customer a written work order of reasonable particularity. To interpret the statute otherwise would allow any remodeler following an original remodeler to circumvent or render meaningless the public policy objective of the statute. Furthermore, there is no exception under the Act for projects billed on a time and material basis, or projects that become unpredictable in scope and nature. To the contrary, the Act appears designed to help define some reasonable boundaries for a home improvement project. The Act requires an estimate of "reasonable particularity." Nothing in the Act precludes a contractor from providing an updated estimate or work order as the circumstances may warrant. In any case, this court cannot add exceptions, limitations, or conditions to the statute that the legislature did not express.

The language of the Act clearly and unambiguously requires anyone engaged in the business of home repair and remodeling to obtain a signed contract before initiating work that will exceed $1,000 in cost. The trial court erred in concluding the Act did not apply in the instant case, and the court should now hear any claims that were dismissed on that basis. Thus, to the extent that the trial court's rulings relied upon a finding that the Act was not applicable, this cause is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

The Slepians also argue the trial court erred in dismissing the counts of their complaint that were based on the Consumer Fraud Act. 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2002). In their complaint, the Slepians alleged that they were lay consumers of CIES's services and did not know that they were being grossly overcharged by CIES. Not every error committed by the trial court in a civil case leads to reversal. In re Marriage of Wilder, 122 Ill.App.3d 338, 344-45, 77 Ill.Dec. 824, 461 N.E.2d 447, 451 (1983). If the outcome of the case would not have been different, a judgment or decree will not be disturbed. Lawson v. G.D. Searle & Co., 64 Ill.2d 543, 559, 1 Ill.Dec. 497, 356 N.E.2d 779, 787 (1976). The burden is on the party seeking reversal to establish prejudice. Goldstein v. Scott, 108 Ill.App.3d 867, 879, 64 Ill.Dec. 374, 439 N.E.2d 1039, 1047 (1982). Further, this court may affirm the trial court's judgment,...