author: JUSTICE UNDERWOOD

text:
    (Nos. 56552, 56572.

      In re WALTER POLOVCHAK, Appellee and Appellant (The People of the State of Illinois, Appellant and Appellee).

      Opinion filed May 27, 1983.

    Rehearing denied September 30, 1983.

      Tyrone C. Fahner, Attorney General, of Springfield, and Richard M. Daley, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Michael E. Shabat, Joan S. Cherry, and Kevin Sweeney, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
    Julian E. Kulas, of Chicago, and Henry Mark Holzer,'of Brooklyn, New York, for appellee and appellant Walter Polovchak.
    Roger Baldwin Foundation of ACLU, Inc., of Chicago (Diane Geraghty, Harvey Grossman, Steven Lubet, and Richard L. Mandel, of counsel), for appellees Michael and Anna Polovchak.
    Dan K. Webb, United States Attorney, of Chicago (Nancy K. Needles and Frederick H. Branding, Assistant United States Attorneys, of counsel), for the United States of America.
   JUSTICE UNDERWOOD

delivered the opinion of the court:

On July 19, 1980, pursuant to a petition for adjudication of wardship, the circuit court of Cook County appointed a guardian ad litem for 12-year-old Walter Polovchak, and, over the objection of Walter’s parents, Michael and Anna Polovchak (the Polovchaks) placed the boy in the temporary custody of the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS). Walter was subsequently found to be a minor in need of supervision and adjudged a ward of the court under the Juvenile Court Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, pars. 702 — 3(a), 704 — 8). Temporary custody remained in DCFS with supervised visits arranged between Walter and his parents. Prior to the dispositional hearing, Michael and Anna Polovchak filed an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 662 (73 Ill. 2d R. 662). A divided appellate court reversed (104 Ill. App. 3d 203), and we allowed the petitions of both the State and Walter for leave to appeal.

Michael and Anna Polovchak, and their three children, Natalie, age 17, Walter, and Michael, age 5, arrived in the United States from their homeland, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, in January 1980. The family spent the first few weeks in Chicago with Mr. Polovchak’s sister and her husband before moving to an apartment on the northwest side of Chicago with Mr. Polovchak’s 24-year-old nephew, Walter Polovchak (cousin Walter). Although both parents apparently began working in Chicago, they decided, after a few months, to return to the Ukraine. Natalie decided that she did not want to return with her parents, and Walter, although initially undecided, determined that he, too, wanted to remain in this country. Mr. Polovchak did not challenge his daughter’s decision; however, he was adamantly opposed to allowing Walter to remain in this country. Apparently there was considerable tension between cousin Walter and the Polovchaks, who believed that the cousin was encouraging their son to remain in this country.

Cousin Walter secured another apartment and began moving, apparently on July 12. He and Natalie had had a conversation prior to the move, and it was decided that Natalie would move with her cousin. Walter also told his cousin that he would be joining in the move. The parents were apparently aware of some of these arrangements because on Saturday night, July 12, there was a heated family argument during which Mr. Polovchak, who was quite upset, demanded to know why Natalie was taking his son away.

The next morning, pursuant to a prearrangement, cousin Walter met Natalie and Walter a block or two from the parents’ apartment and the three went to church. After lunch, they returned to a point near the parents’ apartment, and, while the two Walters waited there, Natalie went alone to the apartment to get some of her belongings. She and her father argued about Walter, and the father followed her to the bus stop. Walter and his cousin apparently saw the father approaching and left. Later that day, Natalie joined her brother and cousin at the latter’s apartment, where the three spent the night.

The following day, July 14, Natalie, her brother and cousin, and two adult friends of cousin Walter’s went to the parents’ apartment with two vehicles. The parents were at work, but as Natalie and Walter began gathering their belongings, their mother arrived. She attempted to learn where they were taking her son but was rebuffed. Her son, speaking to her in Ukrainian, said something to the effect that she should not be concerned. Natalie and Walter spent the next four days at their cousin’s apartment, and while no one informed the parents of their whereabouts, it is clear from the record that the Polovchaks knew that their children were together and with cousin Walter but did not know where his apartment was located. Cousin Walter contacted his attorney (who later became counsel for Natalie and Walter) on July 14 or 15.

On July 18, Mr. Polovchak went to a Chicago police station with an interpreter to attempt to find his son. According to a report filed by Sergeant Leo Rojek, Mr. Polovchak stated that Natalie had enticed Walter to run away from home rather than return to the Ukraine, and she was hiding him in cousin Walter’s apartment. After apparently receiving a telephone number for cousin Walter’s place of employment, the police ascertained his home address; they subsequently went to the apartment, located Walter, and took him back to the station.

After arriving at the station, Walter was asked why he ran away from home. He responded that his father intended to return to the Ukraine, but that he wanted to stay in this country. The police then contacted the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Department of State and were instructed by officials from the Department of State that Walter was not to be returned to his parents. The police also contacted a Cook County judge who recommended that Walter be detained overnight as a runaway and brought to juvenile court the following morning. At some point during the processing, Natalie and cousin Walter’s attorney, whom the cousin had apparently retained to represent Walter and Natalie, arrived at the police station. Walter was processed as a minor in need of supervision and placed with his sister and their attorney at the latter’s residence. Mr. Polovchak was told of the court date the following morning and advised that he and his wife would be transported to the hearing by the police.

A petition for adjudication of wardship was subsequently filed by a police officer, alleging that Walter Polovchak, age 12, was “beyond the control of his parents in that he did on/or about July 14, 1980 at 9:00 A.M. at Cook County, Illinois, absent himself from his home without the expressed consent of his parents, in violation of Chapter 37, Section 702 — 3a, Illinois Revised Statutes, 1979,” and that it was in the best interests of the minor and the public that Walter be adjudged a ward of the court.

On July 19, Walter appeared in court with the retained attorney. Also present were an assistant State’s Attorney, counsel for the subsequently appointed guardian ad litem, a representative of DCFS, a representative of the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the United States, several police officers, and the Polovchaks. The trial judge asked whether Walter was prepared to plead to the charge, and, after an off-the-record conference between the assistant State’s Attorney and counsel for the guardian ad litem, the latter entered a denial on behalf of Whiter. She also informed the court that she and the assistant State’s Attorney had agreed to the appointment of a temporary custodian. The assistant State’s Attorney advised the court that it was her understanding that the parents were not in agreement with the temporary custody arrangement.

The Polovchaks neither spoke nor understood English, they did not have an attorney, nor were they provided with counsel or a court-appointed interpreter. Walter's private attorney, who speaks Ukrainian, advised the court that there were Ukrainian-speaking people in the courtroom, and a woman, whose status is not disclosed by the record, volunteered to interpret for the parents. Through the interpreter, the trial judge ascertained that Walter had been away from home since July 14, and that the parents wanted to take him home with them. The court informed the Polovchaks that Walter would be placed in the temporary custody of DCFS pending a social investigation by a probation officer and a full hearing to determine whether Walter was a minor in need of supervision and whether he would be removed or returned to the custody of his parents. The parents were also advised that they had the right to be represented by counsel and that they should return to court with their attorney on July 30. No evidence was taken at this hearing; despite the parents’ opposition, an order said to be “by agreement” was entered appointing the Guardianship Administrator of DCFS temporary custodian. In addition, the following findings of fact were entered on a preprinted form: that probable cause existed to believe that Walter was a minor otherwise in need of supervision, and that Walter should be placed in custody, in a suitable place, pending a further hearing because it was a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for his protection, he had been away from home for five days, he had in open court stated that he would not remain with his parents if released, and on his own motion he requested the court to order protective detention.

A petition was subsequently filed seeking to have Natalie Polovchak adjudged a ward of the court. The allegations of this petition were virtually identical to those contained in the previous petition on behalf of her brother. The hearing that followed on both petitions extended over a two-day period. All parties were represented by counsel, and several interpreters were present.

At the outset of the July 30 adjudicatory hearing, the trial court denied a motion by counsel for the Polovchaks to vacate the temporary custody order of July 19 on the grounds that it was not in compliance with the Juvenile Court Act. Over the objection of opposing counsel, the attorneys for Natalie and Walter then entered admissions on behalf of their clients “to the charges that they [were] minors in need of supervision.” All four members of the Polovchak family, including Walter, subsequently testified through an interpreter. The court also heard testimony from cousin Walter, Sergeant Rojek, and two psychiatrists. The evidence indicated that Walter left his parents’ home without their consent and stayed with his sister and cousin for the next few days in the cousin’s apartment and that he was motivated in doing so by his desire to stay in this country rather than return to the Ukraine. While both Natalie and cousin Walter denied that either influenced Walter’s decision, it is clear that Walter’s cousin had told Walter that he would help him if Walter decided not to go back to the Ukraine with his parents; it is also undisputed that Natalie, cousin Walter and his two adult friends assisted him in removing his belongings from his parents’ home. Walter testified that had his sister and cousin not assisted him or allowed him to stay with them, he would have still left his parents’ apartment and gone somewhere else.

Both the State and the Polovchaks presented psychiatric testimony. The two psychiatrists, Dr. Ner Littner and Dr. Robert Bussell, neither of whom examined Walter, testified in response to hypothetical questions which essentially incorporated the salient facts of this case. Neither expert believed that Walter was beyond the control of his parents. In addition, Dr. Littner, the Polovchaks’ witness, stated his opinion that Walter’s behavior was an immature act of defiance and rebellion rather than an independent judgment, and that the assistance of Walter’s sister and cousin provided his actions with an aura of respectability or gave Walter a rationalization for rebelling against his parents. Further he stated that Walter was not a runaway nor did he engage in the type of behavior common to a runaway, who would ordinarily be certain not to let his parents know where he was going. Dr. Littner believed that, had Walter not been assisted by his cousin and sister, he may have manifested his disagreement with his parents by locking himself into a room and refusing to come out. The psychiatrists disagreed on whether a 12-year-old boy had the ability to make an independent judgment as to which country he preferred to live in; their opinions also differed on the extent of emotional harm that would result to Walter from a continued separation from his parents.

At the conclusion of the hearing on August 4, 1980, the trial court found both Natalie and Walter to be minors in need of supervision and also adjudicated them wards of the court. Thereafter, during a discussion of possible temporary dispositions, including Walter’s return to his parents, the judge was told by the DCFS worker that Walter had threatened suicide if returned “home.” The worker indicated she would have so testified under oath, but the trial court denied a request that she be sworn. While the State attempts to rely on the alleged suicidal threats, we believe the references thereto are too nebulous for that purpose. There had been no reference to such threats in the initial appearance before the court or during the adjudicatory hearing. The later reference was neither under oath nor subject to cross-examination, and Walter neither testified, nor was he asked, about the matter. It is not entirely clear whether “home” was understood by Walter as the apartment of his parents or the Ukraine. Finally, the court had already announced its decision before the worker, who apparently neither spoke nor understood Ukrainian, volunteered the information.

On November 5, the date scheduled for the dispositional hearing, the Polovchaks filed notices of appeal from the wardship adjudications and the temporary custody orders. Natalie is no longer a minor under our juvenile act, and she is not involved in this appeal.

The United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, at the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, has filed a “suggestion of interest” in this court advising us that, on July 19, 1980, the district director of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, with the advice of the Department of State, granted Walter Polovchak’s petition for asylum. Walter’s status was subsequently changed to permanent resident alien. We are informed that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has also entered a departure control order which prohibits the departure of Walter from the United States. While advising us that the United States has no direct interest in the legal issues presented concerning our State statute, the United States Attorney suggests that any decision regarding the final custody of Walter respect the supremacy of the obligations of the United States under the Refugee Act of 1980 (94 Stat. 109, 8 U.S.C. 1182 (1980)) and the international obligations of the United States under the United Nations Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. 19 U.S.T. 6224-29 (1968).

Both the State and Walter argue that the parents should have been estopped from taking an interlocutory appeal under our Rule 662. The appellate court denied the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal on that ground, a decision with which we agree. It is unnecessary to lengthen this opinion by quoting or discussing the portions of the record which demonstrate that the charges that the appeal was “fraudulently” based, that the parents “deceived” the trial court or adopted dilatory tactics for the purpose of taking an appeal are unfounded. Suffice it to say that the delay between the date of the wardship adjudication and the date scheduled for the dispositional hearing resulted from a number of factors, some of which were directly attributable to the State and the minors. Too, we do not doubt that the multiple litigation and controversy surrounding this case have also adversely affected what should otherwise have been a prompt determination regarding Walter’s custody. In fact, on the date scheduled for the dispositional hearing, he had been removed from the custody of his parents for 3V2 months. Under the circumstances of this case, where the parents, but not the minor, were contesting the adjudication of wardship and the determination that their son was a minor in need of supervision, and an order of disposition had not been entered within 90 days of the adjudication of wardship, we hold that the parents properly invoked our Rule 662 to appeal (73 Ill. 2d R. 662).

The stated purpose of our Juvenile Court Act “is to secure for each minor subject hereto such care and guidance, preferably in his own home, as will serve the moral, emotional, mental, and physical welfare of the minor and the best interests of the community; to preserve and strengthen the minor’s family ties whenever possible, removing him from the custody of his parents only when his welfare or safety or the protection of the public cannot be adequately safeguarded without removal ***.” (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701—2(1); People ex rel. Davis v. Vazquez (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 132, 142-43.) Just as the Act severely limits the authority to hold a minor in custody (People v. Woodruff (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 10, 14), it quite clearly directs the court before whom the minor is brought to release the minor to the custody of his parents rather than prescribe detention or shelter care unless it is found that it “is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor or of the person or property of another, that he is likely to flee the jurisdiction of the court or that the minor was taken into custody under a warrant.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, pars. 703—4, 703—6.

While the original order removing Walter from the custody of his parents includes a finding that the order was a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for Walter’s protection, evidence in the record simply does not support that finding. None of the witnesses present, the minor, the parents or anyone else able to give relevant testimony was examined. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 703—6.) Nor did Walter state, as the findings would seem to indicate, that he would not remain with his parents if released. Indeed, it is clear from the later proceedings that Walter’s obstinance stemmed not from his opposition to being reunited with his parents but rather from his desire not to return to the Ukraine, an unlikely possibility, had the court released him to his parents, in view of the interest manifested by the Federal agencies. The factual allegation in the petition was that Walter had been away from home for five days without the expressed consent of his parents. Whether the court was aware, at the initial hearing, of the circumstances under which Walter left his parents’ home or that he had been staying with his cousin and older sister, rather than at large in the city of Chicago, is also unclear since no one specifically advised the court, at least on the record, of these facts. It is, in our opinion, clear that, given the absence of evidence to support the finding required by statute, Walter should have been released to the custody of his parents, who were in the courtroom requesting permission to take their son home.

The statutory provision under which Walter was later adjudicated a minor in need of supervision then provided: “Those otherwise in need of supervision include (a) any minor under 18 years of age who is beyond the control of his parents, guardian or other custodian.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 702—3(a); the statute has since been amended by Public Act 82 — 969 (Minor Requiring Authoritative Intervention), approved Sept. 8, 1982, eff. Jan. 1, 1983.) The Act requires that an adjudicatory hearing be held to determine whether the allegations of the petition are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 701—4.) The decision of the trial court at that hearing should not be disturbed on appeal unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. See In re Brown (1981), 86 Ill. 2d 147, 152; In re Stilley (1977), 66 Ill. 2d 515, 520.

While this court has not previously construed the phrase “beyond the control” of one’s parents, and the legislature has not further defined or explained that term in the Act, we agree with the appellate court that it seems manifest that the legislature could not have intended that phrase to include an isolated act by a 12-year-old minor which poses no hazard to him or anyone else. Decisions in this court, while involving different issues, demonstrate that the initial determination that the minor was in need of supervision was predicated on the fact that he was incorrigible, a frequent runaway or his acts posed serious hazards to himself or others. See In re R.R. (1982), 92 Ill. 2d 423 (minor tried to poison her mother and was beyond her parents’ control); In re Baker (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 480 (minor repeatedly ran away from home); In re Sekeres (1971), 48 Ill. 2d 431, appeal dismissed (1972), 404 U.S. 1008, 30 L. Ed. 2d 656, 92 S. Ct. 691 (minor frequently absented herself from home); In re Presley (1970), 47 Ill. 2d 50 (allegations in original petition seeking to adjudicate minor otherwise in need of supervision or neglected were that she had absented herself from home for long periods of time without parental consent and on a specific date was forced by her mother and stepfather to leave home); cf. In re G.B. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 36, cert. denied (1982), 456 U.S. 963, 72 L. Ed. 2d 487, 102 S. Ct. 2041 (habitually truant minor); Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 37, par. 702—3(b); Pub. Act 82 — 969 (minor requiring authoritative intervention), eff. Jan. 1, 1983; see also In re Snyder (1975), 85 Wash. 2d 182, 532 P.2d 278 (evidence that minor was adamant about refusing to return home, had established a pattern of refusing to obey her parents, and, on two occasions, in effect, fled her home, was sufficient to support the finding of loss of parental power and control); In re D.J.B. (1971), 18 Cal. App. 3d 782, 96 Cal. Rptr. 146 (a finding that a minor is beyond the control of his parents may be predicated on a single act if sufficiently serious; evidence that minor left home without parental consent was not of such a nature as to be indicative of the loss of parental control); In re Galvan (La. App. 1980), 384 So. 2d 1000 (evidence that on two occasions minor left the home of his mother — the custodial parent — without consent and stayed with his father because his mother was planning to move the family to Texas or because he may have thought he would be sent to military school was insufficient to establish that the minor was habitually disobedient and was ungovernable by his mother or that he was a runaway child in need of supervision); cf. In re Price (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 1978), 94 Misc. 2d 345, 404 N.Y.S.2d 821.

Although the parties characterize the evidence differently and disagree as to its legal sufficiency, as the appellate court noted, no material facts were in dispute. With the help of his sister and cousin, Walter, a 12-year-old boy, left his parents’ home without their consent and spent the next few days with his older sister at his cousin’s apartment. This occurred during a time of considerable family tension regarding the Polovchaks’ decision to return to their homeland. Neither psychiatrist, testifying in response to hypothetical questions based on these and other relevant facts, believed that Walter was beyond the control of his parents. We believe the appellate court correctly concluded that the trial court’s decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Walter’s actions, which can hardly be characterized as those of a runaway, and posed no hazard to him or anyone else, simply do not establish that he was beyond parental control.

The State argues, alternatively, that this court should remand for another hearing because Walter was not given the opportunity to present evidence that he was in need of supervision. Because the court indicated that it was going to conduct a hearing to determine whether there was a factual basis for the earlier admission entered by Walter, the State argues that Walter was limited in presenting evidence. Too, the State complains that, believing that there need only have been evidence to establish a factual basis for the admission, it may have been misled concerning the amount of evidence it was required to produce, and should therefore have another opportunity. We cannot agree. The record shows that neither the State nor Walter was prevented from presenting any evidence relevant to the determination of whether Walter was beyond his parents’ control. A full adjudicatory hearing was held; Michael, Anna, Natalie and Walter Polovchak, cousin Walter and several other witnesses testified; each witness was fully examined by all parties; and, as the appellate court stated, the record establishes that the State recognized its burden and proceeded accordingly.

We have been advised that Michael and Anna Polovchak have returned to the Ukraine. It is apparent, therefore, that Walter cannot immediately be returned to his parents, even assuming the Federal orders prohibiting his departure from this country had not been entered. We, of course, have considered only the issues before us, and our holding that the evidence before the circuit court did not support its action is dispositive only of those proceedings. Considering that, so far as we are presently informed, Federal litigation regarding the asylum and departure orders is still pending in the United States courts, we believe the appropriate disposition of this case is to remand it to the circuit court of Cook County with directions that it retain jurisdiction of Walter and this cause pending the return of Walter’s parents, or either of them, to this country, in which event Walter’s custody shall be given to the returning parents or parent. In the event that neither Michael nor Anna Polovchak shall return, the circuit court shall proceed in the manner it deems best suited to Walter’s needs.

In view of our disposition here, we need reach neither the constitutional challenges nor the issue of whether the adjudication of wardship was in the best interests of Walter or the public.

For the reasons stated the appellate court’s judgment reversing the circuit court is affirmed, and the cause is remanded to the circuit court of Cook County with directions to proceed in accordance herewith.

Affirmed and remanded, with directions.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: JUSTICE WARD

license: Public Domain

text:
    (No. 56610.
    MARGARET DOMAGALSKI, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Uniroyal, Appellee).

      Opinion filed June 17, 1983.

      Anesi, Ozmon, Lewin & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago (Charles E. Anesi and Arnold G. Rubin, of counsel), for appellant.
    Discipio, Martay & Caruso, of Chicago (Francis M. Discipio, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE WARD

delivered the opinion of the court:

On January 7, 1973, Margaret Domagalski was employed as a security guard for the respondent, Uniroyal. Her duties required her to carry 10-gallon jugs of water to various guard posts in the plant area. In attempting to lift a full water jug from a 3V2-foot table, she slipped and fell on the cement floor. As she fell, the water jug struck her right leg, cutting her right hand and bruising her right thigh. She was treated by the plant nurse, who applied ice packs and bandaged the leg. She worked the following day, but was given lighter duties.

On January 18, 1973, the claimant visited her family physician, Dr. Bernard E. Zaworski, and complained of an inability to hold urine and pain in the legs and chest. She had a history of circulatory difficulties in her legs. She took a leave of absence on the advice of her doctor and never returned to work. While under treatment by Dr. Zaworski, she had bladder surgery in late February 1973. The post-surgical evaluation was urinary stress incontinence due to enterocele and vaginal vault prolapse. She was hospitalized in May of 1973 and was treated for multiple pulmonary emboli. She had vena cava surgery in a third hospitalization in September of 1973.

On August 8, 1973, Domagalski filed a claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (the Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for the injuries she claimed resulted from her accident on January 7, 1973. The claim form described the injuries as an “injured right leg, right index finger and stomach while working.”

The claimant’s chest pain intensified in May of 1974. She was hospitalized for one week for tests, medication, and inhalation therapy and remained under the care of Dr. Edwin R. Levine until October 1974.

At the hearing before the arbitrator the parties stipulated, inter alia, that the claimant “sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment.” While listing the questions in dispute, the arbitrator stated:

“I understand that the Respondent is asking the Petitioner to prove, if possible, a causal relationship between the incident of January 7, 1973, and the condition of ill being now complained of.”

A claim form, dated January 19, 1973, was offered into evidence by the respondent at the arbitrator’s hearing. In the top half of the form, the claimant gave a negative response to the question, “Was an accident or injury involved?” The balance of the form, completed by Dr. Zaworski, included these notations:

“Diagnosis: Urethral stenosis - Vaginal prolapse - Enterocele.
In your opinion was the patient’s disability a result of patient’s employment? No X.”

Dr. Levine testified that he was unable to make a diagnosis following his examination of the claimant on March 19 and May 11 of 1974. On May 29, 1974, he had the claimant admitted to the intensive-care unit of a hospital for treatment of pulmonary emboli. His testimony at the hearing before the arbitrator was:

“My diagnosis is and has been that she has pulmonary emboli and infarction in the lung, in both lungs which arose and continues to arise from the veins in both legs. They are inflamed with blood clots in both legs and that these are draining and producing blood clots in the lung and that this condition continues despite all the therapy that I have given her.”

Dr. Levine further testified that in his opinion the trauma sustained by the claimant on January 7, 1973, could be “sufficient and ample to account for [her] subsequent condition of ill being.”

On cross-examination, Dr. Levine stated that, if he had been the claimant’s physician in 1973, he would not have performed bladder surgery if there was any indication that the patient was suffering from a pulmonary embolism. He also admitted that the embolism could have resulted from the bladder surgery and that there was no way of determining where the embolism originated, but that it could have come from the pelvic area.

Various medical reports received in evidence contained this information: the 48-year-old claimant began smoking at the age of 19 and smokes a pack of cigarettes a day; she has given birth to three children, the last by Cesarean section; following her third delivery she underwent a tubal ligation; subsequently, she had corrective surgery in an attempt to have children again; about one year after each childbirth she had surgery on both legs to strip varicose veins; and she had a hysterectomy in 1970.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the arbitrator awarded the claimant compensation for temporary total disability.

Both parties petitioned for review before the Industrial Commission. At the hearing on review, Uniroyal introduced a medical report, dated September 29, 1975, of Dr. William B. Buckingham, who had examined the claimant at the employer’s request. The report concluded:

“In my opinion the cause of the pulmonary emboli was the bladder surgery which preceded the onset of the pulmonary emboli by approximately seven or eight weeks. She had evidence of infection and also had pelvic surgery with the description of adhesions from previous cesarean section. All of these things are precipitating events for the development of phlebothrombosis in the venus system in the lower extremities. The episode with the water bottle in which she sustained some cuts and trauma in January, 1973, in my opinion had nothing to do with the production of the pulmonary emboli. I believe that her stress incontinence was secondary to relaxation of the pelvic structures which in turn was secondary to the previous vaginally delivered pregnancies. In my opinion there is no clinical evidence that could be related to the pulmonary emboli until after the patient had the pelvic surgery.”

On February 4, 1976, the Commission filed its decision on review denying Domagalski’s claim “for the reason that the said accidental injuries did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.” Domagalski filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the circuit court of Will County on February 13, 1976. On February 27, 1976, the Industrial Commission, acting sua sponte, filed a “corrected decision on review” holding that the claimant suffered accidental injuries on January 7, 1973, arising out of and in the course of her employment, but denying her claim for the reason “that the condition of ill being complained of by the petitioner, at the present time, is not causally related to the accidental injury sustained on January 7,1973.”

On March 31, 1982, the circuit court of Will County confirmed the February 4, 1976, decision of the Industrial Commission. The circuit court order stated, inter alia, that the “corrected decision” of February 27, 1976, was a nullity, that the finding of the Commission in its initial decision “that the accidental injuries claimed by petitioner did not arise out of and in the course of her employment is not contrary or opposite to the total stipulation of the parties [that the claimant sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of the employment],” that the finding “was sufficiently broad to include therein that the condition of ill being complained of by the petitioner was not causally related to her accidental injury which was not serious,” and that the decision of the Industrial Commission was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, nor contrary to law. The record does not explain the incredible delay in completing this Workers’ Compensation Act proceeding. The claimant brought a direct appeal to this court under our Rule 302(a). 73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).

Uniroyal contends that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to review either decision of the Industrial Commission. Section 19(f)(1) of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1)) provides that a circuit court shall “have power to review” a decision of the Industrial Commission if a petition for a writ of certiorari is filed within 20 days of the receipt of notice of the Commission’s decision. Uniroyal argues that the “corrected decision” of February 27, 1976, became final and is dispositive of Domagalski’s claim, since neither party appealed from the corrected decision within the statutory 20-day period. The claimant argues that the “corrected decision” was a nullity and, thus, for purposes of section 19(f)(1), there was no February 27, 1976, decision for which a writ of certiorari could be sought. The circuit court’s agreement with Domagalski on this was correct.

Section 19(f) of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides, in part, that “the Commission may on *** its own motion, or on the motion of either party, correct any clerical error or errors in computation within 15 days after the date of receipt of *** any decision on review of the Commission and shall have the power to recall the original *** decision on review, and issue in lieu thereof such corrected *** decision.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f).

The record shows that the Industrial Commission did not file its “corrected decision” until 23 days after its first decision, and until after the circuit court had issued a writ of certiorari. The February 27, 1976, decision was therefore of no effect. When the Commission filed its “corrected decision,” it had already lost jurisdiction of the case. This situation is unlike that in International Harvester v. Industrial Com. (1978), 71 Ill. 2d 180, and Schumann v. Industrial Com. (1975), 61 Ill. 2d 241, where the corrected decisions were held to be effective though they were filed after the expiration of the 15-day statutory period. In those cases, unlike here, a petition for correction had been filed within 15 days of receipt of the initial decision on review. The narrow holding in those cases was that the filing of a motion for correction within the 15-day period kept jurisdiction of the matter in the Industrial Commission. Domagalski could not, in effect, appeal from a decision which, under the statute, never became effective. Since the “corrected decision” was a nullity, the circuit court properly considered whether the Industrial Commission’s February 4, 1976, decision was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. We now consider that question.

The stipulation of the parties notwithstanding, the Commission denied Domagalski’s claim on the ground that her injuries did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The claimant, citing General Electric Co. v. Industrial Com. (1952), 411 Ill. 401, contends that the Commission was without authority to enter an order contrary to the terms of the stipulation. The stipulation in General Electric was that the employer had provided medical services to the claimant. This court said that “a stipulation by the parties as to the facts is conclusive so long as it stands.” (411 Ill. 401, 405; see also T. Angerstein, niinois Workmen’s Compensation secs. 1975, 1976 (rev. ed. 1952).) Different from General Electric, the stipulation which the claimant here attempts to enforce concerned a question of law, viz, whether her injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. Parties cannot bind a court by stipulating to a question of law or the legal effect of facts. People v. Levisen (1950), 404 Ill. 574; National Bank v. Murphy (1943), 384 Ill. 61.

Although a reviewing court might draw different inferences, the Industrial Commission finding will not, of course, be set aside unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Millis v. Industrial Com. (1982), 89 Ill. 2d 444.) The words “arising out of” refer to the origin or cause of the accident and presuppose a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury. (Greene v. Industrial Com. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 1; Chmelik v. Vana (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 272.) “For an injury to arise out of one’s employment the injury must have an origin in some risk connected with or incidental to the employment so that there is a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury.” (Fire King Oil Co. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 293, 295.) The resolution of whether there is a causal connection between the claimant’s injuries and the employment is uniquely within the province of the Industrial Commission. (Goldblatt Brothers, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 85 Ill. 2d 172, 177-78; Mid-City Architectural Iron Co. v. Industrial Com. (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 34, 41.) Too, the Commission’s resolution of conflicting medical evidence will not be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. (Garrison v. Industrial Com. (1980), 83 Ill. 2d 375.) Our examination of the record shows that the Industrial Commission’s finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

For the reasons given, the judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.


author: JUSTICE CLARK JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH,

text:
    (No. 57286.
    BEMIS COMPANY, INC., Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al (Zella Hudson, Appellee).

      Opinion filed June 17, 1983.

    Rehearing denied September 30, 1983.

    Joseph P. Gilfillan, of Davis & Morgan, of Peoria, for appellant.
    James L. Hafele, of James L. Hafele, P.C., of Peoria, for appellee.
   JUSTICE CLARK

delivered the opinion of the court:

This action was brought by petitioner, Zella Hudson, the widow of James Hudson, to recover compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) for damages incurred as the result of her husband’s death while employed by respondent, Bemis Company, Inc. The Industrial Commission affirmed an award entered by the arbitrator in favor of the widow. The circuit court of Peoria County confirmed the award of the Commission. The employer appealed directly to this court. 87 Ill. 2d R. 302(a).

The first issue with which we are confronted in this appeal is the question of the circuit court’s jurisdiction. The petitioner asserts that the circuit court improperly exercised jurisdiction because the writ of certiorari was improperly issued. The petitioner contends that because the receipt from the Commission for payment of costs for preparation of the record was not exhibited to the clerk before the writ of certiorari was issued, the requirements of section 19(f)(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act were not complied with (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1)).

Section 19(f)(1) of the Workers’ Compensation Act provides in pertinent part:

“[S]uit by writ of certiorari shall be commenced within 20 days of the receipt of notice of the decision of the Commission. ***
In its decision on review the Commission shall determine in each particular case the amount of the probable cost of the record to be filed as a return to the writ of certiorari in that case and no praecipe for a writ of certiorari may be filed and no writ of certiorari shall issue unless the party seeking to review the decision of the Commission shall exhibit to the clerk of the Circuit Court a receipt showing payment of the sums so determined to the Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Commission ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 48, par. 138.19(f)(1).

The record shows that the decision of the Industrial Commission was entered on January 18, 1982, and the attorney representing the Bemis Company received notice of the Commission’s decision on January 20,1982.

On February 3, 1982, the attorney for the Bemis Company forwarded a check in the amount of $175 to the Industrial Commission in payment of the probable costs of preparing the record. On February 5, 1982, he called the Industrial Commission and was informed that the check had been received and that a receipt had been issued which was to be deposited in the mail on the same day. On February 8, 1982, the 19th day after the attorney for the Bemis Company had been notified of the Commission’s decision, he filed with the circuit court of Peoria County a praecipe for a writ of certiorari. At the time of the filing, he personally informed the deputy circuit clerk of the aforementioned facts as well as the fact that he had not yet received the receipt from the Industrial Commission. The 'writ of certiorari was issued on February 8, 1982, and the deputy clerk indicated, on a note attached to the writ, that the issuance of the receipt by the Commission was confirmed in a telephone call made by the deputy clerk on February 9, 1982. The receipt was filed with the clerk on February 10,1982.

In Berry v. Industrial Com. (1973), 55 Ill. 2d 274, the court found that the purpose of the filing of the receipt before the filing of the praecipe is to see that the costs for preparing the record are paid. The court said that “[i]f the costs have been paid and the clerk has been satisfied that payment has in fact been made, the purpose of the statute has been fulfilled.” 55 Ill. 2d 274, 278; see also Wabash Area Development, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 392, 396; American Steel Foundries v. Industrial Com. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 513.

In Wabash Area Development, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1981), 88 Ill. 2d 392, the court found that for a writ of certiorari to properly issue there must be some proof in the record that either a receipt was exhibited to the clerk of the circuit court or the clerk was satisfied in some other way that the probable cost of the record had been paid.

Our most recent discussion of the requirements needed to comply with section 19(f) is in Arrington v. Industrial Com. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 505. That case involved a claimant who had admitted it was not established in the record that a receipt was physically exhibited to the clerk before the issuance of the writ of certiorari. While an affidavit was filed by the claimant’s attorney stating that he had sent a check to the Industrial Commission to pay the probable cost of the record, we determined that the filing of the affidavit was insufficient to comply with section 19(f)(1). The court reasoned that, “[s]ince the check might have been lost or misplaced in transit by the postal service, this affidavit is inadequate to demonstrate that the Commission had actually received payment of the probable cost of the record before the writ of the circuit court issued.” (Arrington v. Industrial Com. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 505, 510.) We went on to say:

“In holding that the claimant’s affidavit failed to provide sufficient evidence that the probable cost of the record had actually been paid, we decline to extend the rationale of Berry to cover this case. Although we recognize Berry sought to further substance over form and prevent technicalities from depriving a party of the right to be heard, these objectives must be balanced against the statutory goal of ensuring that payment has actually been received prior to the issuance of the writ. In seeking to relax further the standards articulated in Berry to cover a new situation where no proof exists in the record to show the clerk was actually made aware that the payment had been received, the claimant asks us to create an unacceptable risk that the writ of certiorari will be improvidently issued.” Arrington v. Industrial Com. (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 505, 510-11.

Here the only assurance that the Commission had received payment before the writ was issued came from the statements made by the attorney filing the praecipe to the clerk. The deputy clerk’s subsequent telephone call a day after the writ was issued does not remedy the situation. Had the clerk called and verified the issuance of the receipt prior to the issuance of the writ of certiorari, we would be looking at a much more persuasive case where the clerk of the circuit court had also been assured that the Commission had received payment. Because that verification came after the issuance of the writ of certiorari, it came too late.

In accordance with our holding in Arrington v. Industrial Com., we find that the writ in the instant case was improperly issued.

We find that because respondent Bemis Company, Inc., failed to comply with the requirements of section 19(f)(1) the writ of certiorari was wrongfully issued and the circuit court of Peoria County was without jurisdiction to review the findings of the Industrial Commission.

We are therefore compelled to vacate the judgment of the circuit court.

Judgment vacated.

JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH,

dissenting:

I dissent and would consider the appeal on its merits. The record shows that the respondent received notice of the Commission’s decision on January 20, 1982. On February 3, 1982, its attorney mailed a check to the Commission in the amount of the probable cost of the record. On February 5, 1982, his attorney was advised by telephone that the check had been received and a receipt had been issued. Three days later, well within the 20-day period, the praecipe was filed and the writ of certiorari was issued. The receipt was filed with the clerk’s office on February 10, 1982, long before petitioner was required to answer the writ.

The intent of the statute is to assure that the Commission receives the sums due it for the preparation of the record. A litigant should not be penalized because of the present sad state of service furnished by the postal department. The assurances of an attorney and officer of this court that he has paid a certain sum of money should be accepted at face value.

Clearly there was compliance with the statute here and dismissal under these circumstances is a miscarriage of justice.

JUSTICE SIMON joins in this dissent.


author: JUSTICE SIMON

text:
    (No. 57055.
    FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CHICAGO, Appellee, v. JOHN T. CONNELLY et al. (Henry B. Rossi, Jr., Appellant).

      Opinion filed June 17, 1983.

    Rehearing denied September 30, 1983.

      Dennis G. Krai, Ltd., of Dolton, for appellant.
    Liebling & Hauselman, of Chicago (Martin F. Hauselman, Patricia O’Brien Norum, and Todd D. Feldman, of counsel), for appellee.
   JUSTICE SIMON

delivered the opinion of the court:

At issue in this case is whether a mechanic’s lien claimed by the defendant Henry B. Rossi against properly held by a land trustee has priority over a mortgage which existed prior to the filing of the lien. Four apartment buddings were being constructed by defendant John ConneUy when Rossi’s lien was filed. The plaintiff, First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Chicago (First Federal) held prior mortgages on three of them and adeges that Rossi’s lien is unenforceable against it because the information contained in the claim faded to comply with the filing requirements of the Mechanics’ Liens Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 7). This case involves one of the three buddings on which First Federal holds mortgages. We hold that the filing statement contained sufficient information to comply with the statute’s requirements and thus Rossi’s den is not unenforceable against First Federal for that reason.

The lien chadenged in this case represents the balance due on an oral contract under which Rossi agreed to deliver and instad wad-to-wad carpeting in the four apartment buddings being constructed by Connelly. The parties agreed on a total price of $12,102 for the carpeting and its instadation in the four buddings. Rossi filed his claim for a •mechanic’s lien on June 3, 1980. The filing statement claimed a blanket lien of $12,102 against the four properties without apportionment of this total contract price among each of the four buddings. The statement also set forth that Rossi completed ad work under the contract on or about March 15, 1980. It did not, however, specify a separate completion date for each budding.

Six weeks after Rossi filed his lien, First Federal filed a complaint in the circuit court of Cook County seeking to foreclose on its mortgage on one of the four buddings covered by Rossi’s den notice. Later, in an amended complaint, First Federal included Rossi as a defendant seeking the exclusion of his rights of redemption. First Federal moved for the entry of an order determining the priority of liens between First Federal, as prior mortgagee, and Rossi, as mechanic’s lien claimant; the motion alleged that Rossi’s lien was subordinate to its mortgage because the lien claim he filed did not separately disclose the date that work was completed on each building, and failed to apportion the total contract price among the four buildings based on the materials and labor furnished to each. The circuit court held on the pleadings and without receiving any evidence that Rossi’s mechanic’s lien was subordinate to First Federal’s mortgage, and the appellate court affirmed (107 Ill. App. 3d 298).

Section 1 of the Mechanics’ Liens Act of 1903 provides that any person who, under a contract with the owner of a lot or tract of land, furnishes labor, materials or fixtures for the construction, alteration or repair of the property “is known under this Act as a contractor, and has a lien upon the whole of such lot or tract of land *** and in ease the contract relates to 2 or more buildings, on 2 or more lots or tracts of land, upon all such lots and tracts of land and improvements thereon for the amount due to him for such material, fixtures, apparatus, machinery, services or labor, and interest from the date the same is due ***.” (Emphasis added.) Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 1.

This lien attaches as of the date of the contract, but the lien is unenforceable against third parties unless the contractor complies with section 7, which provides:

“No contractor shall be allowed to enforce such lien against or to the prejudice of any other creditor or incumbrancer or purchaser, unless within 4 months after completion *** he or she shall either bring an action to enforce his or her lien therefor or shall file in the office of the recorder of deeds of the county in which the building, erection or other improvement to be charged with the lien is situated, a claim for lien, verified by the affidavit of himself or herself, or his or her agent or employee, which shall consist of a brief statement of the contract, the balance due after allowing all credits, and a sufficiently correct description of the lot, lots or tracts of land to identify the same ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 7.

“As mechanics’ liens were not recognized by the common law or in equity but exist only by virtue of statutes creating them and providing a method for their enforcement, such statutes must be strictly construed with reference to those requirements upon which the right depends.” (Schmidt v. Anderson (1911), 253 Ill. 29, 33; Robinette v. Servite Fathers (1977), 49 Ill. App. 3d 585, 586.) The lien is valid only if each of the statutory requirements is scrupulously observed. Once the contractor has complied with the statutory prerequisites, however, the Mechanics’ Liens Act should be liberally construed in order to carry out its remedial purpose. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 39.) This court has recognized that the purpose of the Act “is to permit a lien upon premises where a benefit has been received by the owner and where the value or condition of the property has been increased or improved by reason of the furnishing of labor and materials.” Colp v. First Baptist Church (1930), 341 Ill. 73, 76-77.

We believe that the claim for lien filed by Rossi fully complies with the requirements of section 7. The claim was properly verified and sufficiently described the contract which provided for the delivery and installation of the carpeting. It recited that the balance due on the contract was $12,102. It adequately described the four tracts of land covered in the claim by listing their street addresses and legal descriptions.

Finally, nothing in the claim for lien suggests that the carpet installation was completed in any of the buildings other than on the date set forth in the claim, that is on or about March 15, 1980; nor has First Federal offered any evidence that the work was completed earlier than that date in any of the buildings.

Sections 1 and 7 specifically authorize the filing of a single claim statement covering multiple parcels. Section 7 provides: “ *** In the event the contract relates to 2 or more buddings on 2 or more lots or tracts of land, then all of these buildings and lots or tracts of land may be included in one statement of claims for a lien.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 7.) Nothing in the language of section 7 requires that the filing statement contain different information when it covers multiple parcels. •

First Federal, however, claims, and the appellate court held, that in mechanics’ liens claim filings involving multiple parcels this court’s decision in Schmidt v. Anderson (1911), 253 Ill. 29, added two requirements to those provided by the statute. First Federal interprets Schmidt as requiring that in such cases the contractor filing the mechanic’s lien must apportion the contract price among each of the various parcels based on the services and materials furnished to each. First Federal also interprets Schmidt as requiring that a claim statement covering multiple parcels must separately disclose the date that the claimant completed work on each parcel of the multiple parcel contract. The appellate court agreed with First Federal’s interpretation of Schmidt and held that Rossi’s mechanic’s lien claim failed to comply with these judicially created requirements; the court for this reason concluded that Rossi’s lien was unenforceable as to First Federal and subordinate to First Federal’s mortgage claim.

We disagree with the way the appellate court applied Schmidt. In that case a contractor filed a mechanic’s lien claim against four houses which had been improved under a single contract. The contractor claimed a blanket lien against all four houses for the contract price and did not apportion that amount among them. Evidence presented in Schmidt showed that, at the time the contractor filed his claim, work had been completed on three of the houses more than six months earlier and on one of the houses (the Oak Street house) less than four months earlier. The party challenging the lien claim argued that the filing was tardy with respect to the three houses because section 7 of the Mechanics’ Liens Act requires that before a lien is enforceable against a third party it must be filed “'within 4 months after completion.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 7.) The claimant responded that sections 1 and 7 of the Act specifically authorize the filing of a lien with respect to multiple parcels improved under a single contract and that in such situations the four-month limitation on filing begins to run only after work on the last parcel has been completed.

The court aptly stated the issue in Schmidt:

“Previous to the passage of said act of 1903 a contractor could not file a single claim for lien for the whole amount due him for labor and materials for the erection of houses on lots which were not adjoining or adjacent to one another, even though all labor was performed or materials were furnished under one contract. *** Manifestly, the present act, as amended in 1903, was passed (and especially the amendments to sections 1 and 7) for the purpose of permitting the contractor to file one claim against separate buildings on lots that were not adjacent to or adjoining each other, provided the work was performed or material furnished for all of such buildings under one entire contract. The vital question in this case is whether the legislature intended by these changes to permit such a claim to be filed against buildings erected on several different lots under one entire contract, even though the work on some of the houses had been performed and the materials for such houses were furnished more than four months before the claim for lien was filed or the suit begun to enforce the lien. ” (Emphasis added.) 253 Ill. 29, 31-32.

The court observed that the purpose of the four-month limitation was to provide ample notice to third parties “of the existence, nature and character of the lien.” (253 Ill. 29, 32.) The court concluded that to accept the contractor’s failure to file the lien claim until he completed work on the last house would subvert the purpose of the four-month limit on filings by extending the time that third parties were entitled to receive notice of claims against the first three houses. The court held:

“In our judgment the legislature did not intend to permit two or more buildings on two or more tracts of land to be included in one claim for lien unless the claim was filed within four months after the last labor was performed or the material furnished on each of the buildings.” 253 Ill. 29, 33.

We hold that the dating and apportionment requirements discussed in Schmidt are necessary only to enforce the four-month limitations period under circumstances analogous to the facts of that case. In Schmidt there was evidence that work on some of the houses had been completed more than four months before the filing of the lien claim. Here, there is no such evidence. In fact, the notice which was filed by Rossi can be construed to state that carpet installation in each of the four buildings was completed on or about March 15, 1980, a date substantially less than four months prior to June 3, 1980, the date on which the lien was filed. Thus, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we view the contents of the claim as adequate from a time standpoint to preserve its priority.

As for the apportionment requirement, “Schmidt did not lay down a per se rule that each time multiple properties are involved, allocation is required.” (Barker-Lubin Co. v. Unknown Heirs or Devisees (1982), 106 Ill. App. 3d 89, 92.) It is true that this court in Schmidt invalidated the lien claimed against the Oak Street house even though the contractor had filed the claim within four months of completing work on that parcel. The court stated that it ruled the Oak Street lien invalid “because there are no data in the claim wherefrom the proper amount could be apportioned to that house.” (253 Ill. 29, 33.) In doing so, however, this court was only enforcing the four-month limitation on filing. The court insisted that, when a lien claimant files tardy claims along with timely ones, he must apportion the amount of the claim against each property in order to ensure that the stale claims are completely separated from the enforceable ones. When the filing is accomplished within four months of the completion of work on each of the parcels that are the subject of the claim, all third parties receive notice of the lien within the four-month period intended by the legislature. The purpose of the limitation period is satisfied, and the reason for apportionment announced in Schmidt is not present.

First Federal claims that the rights of prior mortgagees are prejudiced by multiple lien claims unless lien claimants apportion their claims among the multiple parcels covered in the claim. Unless apportionment is required, First Federal fears that a subtle form of extortion is sanctioned in which prior mortgagees will have to negotiate with mechanics’ liens claimants as to the amount of a settlement before they can clear title to properties in which they share interests.

We believe that the timely filing of a blanket lien provides prior mortgagees with sufficient notice of a lien against the property, even though it does not disclose the specific amount that can be enforced against each individual parcel. Even when a lien claimant files a claim for a specific amount against each parcel the prior mortgagee does not have complete assurance of the accuracy of the amount of the claim, for section 7 provides that “[n]o such lien shall be defeated to the proper amount thereof because of an error or overcharging on the part of any person claiming a lien *** unless it shall be shown that such error or overcharge is made with intent to defraud ***.” (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, par. 7.) In any event, the mortgagee can easily obtain information about the specific amount that is enforceable against him by communicating with the lien claimant or if necessary in discovery. See Provident Federal Savings & Loan Association v. Realty Centre Ltd. (1983), 97 Ill. 2d 187, 192-93.

The language of the Mechanics’ Liens Act, whüe explicitly authorizing the filing of liens against multiple parcels, nowhere requires an apportionment of the total claim among the specific parcels. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 82, pars. 1, 7.) We see no reason to establish filing requirements other than those provided in that act. The provisions of the Act “disclose a manifest legislative intent to remove, as far as practicable, technical requirements as a material element of the right to enforce a valid lien, and to clarify questions touching the materiality of the steps prescribed by the statute.” (United Cork Cos. v. Volland (1937), 365 Ill. 564, 572.) When the lien claimant has strictly complied with each of the statutory requirements, he has a right to expect that his lien will be completely enforceable:

“The doctrine of strict construction was never meant to be applied as a pitfall to the unwary, in good faith pursuing the path marked by the statute, nor as an ambuscade from which an adversary can overwhelm him for an immaterial misstep. Its function is to preserve the substantial rights of those against whom the remedy offered by the statute is directed, and it is never employed otherwise.” United Cork Cos. v. Volland (1937), 365 Ill. 564, 572.

We therefore reverse the judgments of the appellate and circuit courts and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.