A party that fails to attach a Rule 191(b) affidavit to its pleading to address its discovery need may not later seek reversal of the trial court's order on the basis that it was denied important discovery. See Kane, 335 Ill. App. 3d at 224-25 (finding that appellants waived their argument that the trial court abused its discretion in limiting the scope of discovery because they failed to attach a Rule 191(b) affidavit to their summary judgment pleadings); Intercontinental Parts, Inc. v. Caterpillar, Inc., 260 Ill. App. 3d 1085, 1090-91 (1994) (same); see also Lazar Brothers Trucking, Inc. v. AB Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 559, 565 (2006) (finding that a mechanic's lien claimant waived its argument pertaining to discovery because it failed to attach a Rule 191(b) affidavit to its response to the owner's motion to dismiss its lien claim). Here, during the discovery stage of litigation, First Midwest, AMEC, Reinke, Inland and Just Rite sought to depose Hajyousif, but he invoked his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, thus preventing the parties from obtaining answers to questions pertaining to the Montreville Project.

To protect himself from paying twice for the same work, the owner must demand from his contractor, prior to payment, a sworn statement listing all subcontractors providing labor and materials to the contractor. 770 ILCS 60/5 (West 2010); Lazar Brothers Trucking v. A&BExcavating, 365 Ill. App. 3d 559, 563, 850 N.E.2d 215 (2006). Section 5 also states that it is the contractor's duty to provide this information to the owner.

“To protect itself from paying twice for the same work, the owner must demand from the contractor, prior to payment, a sworn statement listing all subcontractors providing labor and materials to the contractor.” Lazar Brothers Trucking, Inc. v. A & B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill.App.3d 559, 563, 302 Ill.Dec. 778, 850 N.E.2d 215, 219 (2006); see also Northwest Millwork Co. v. Komperda, 338 Ill.App.3d 997, 1001, 273 Ill.Dec. 90, 788 N.E.2d 399, 402 (2003) (“If the owner pays the contractor before receiving the sworn statement, the owner may be compelled to pay subcontractors even if he or she has paid the contractor in full.”). ¶ 30 4. Section 24(a) of the Act

Further, in its response to the motion to dismiss, Wabash contends (and Ascher Brothers does not dispute) that Ascher Brothers signed a lien waiver with Wabash. A lien waiver establishes a prima facie defense to a mechanic's lien claim. Lazar Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. A B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 559, 563, 850 N.E.2d 215, 219 (2006). To decide Wabash's quiet title claim, there is a decent chance that the Court will have to make findings about the extent of the mechanic's lien, and it appears likely that the Court will have to determine the effect, if any, of the lien waiver. It is reasonable to believe that findings on these issues may have a practical effect on any similar claims subsequently filed by absent parties.

To protect itself from paying twice for the same work, the owner of a construction project will generally "demand from the contractor, prior to payment, a sworn statement listing all subcontractors providing labor and materials to the contractor." Lazar Bros. Trucking, Inc. v, A & B Excavating, Inc., 365 111. App. 3d 559, 563, 850 N.E.2d 215, 219 (111. App. Ct. 2006). To further protect itself from any such subcontractors asserting mechanics liens against the property, the owner will also generally require lien waivers signed by all subcontractors. Such lien waivers would generally provide a defense to any mechanics liens such parties might claim.

See, e.g., CLDC Mgmt. Corp. v. Geschke, 72 F.3d 1347, 1349 (7th Cir. 1996) (noting that "the Geschkes chose to act as their own general contractor on the job"); Milwaukee Southeast Wisconsin Dist. Council of Carpenters v. Rowley-Schlimgen, Inc., 2 F.3d 765, 767-68 (7th Cir. 1993) ("[T]he Board held that Church's Fried Chicken . . . functioned as its own general contractor in the 'continuing operation of building stores.'"); Applewood Landscape Nursery Co., Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 884 F.2d 1502, 1503 (1st Cir. 1989) (noting that appellant who built house for himself "decided to act as his own general contractor, at least in respect to landscaping"); Lazar Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. A B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill.App.3d 559, 302 Ill. Dec. 778, 850 N.E.2d 215, 217 (2006) (noting that appellee "sought to develop land it owned" and "decided to act as its own general contractor for the project"); WOO Va. Ltd. P'ship v. Vertecs Corp., 158 Wash.2d 566, 146 P.3d 423, 426 (2006) (noting that partnership, "acting as its own general contractor, built an apartment complex"); Waggoner Motors, Inc. v. Waverly Church of Christ, 159 S.W.3d 42, 47 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2004) (noting that appellant "church, acting as its own general contractor, began constructing a 9,000-square-foot general purpose building in back of its existing building"); Mortenson v. Leathenvood Constr., Inc., 137 S.W.3d 529, 531 (Mo.Ct.App. 2004) (noting that school district "acted as its own general contractor" on project to construct addition to school); Wheeler v. T.L. Roofing, Inc., 74 P.3d 499, 501 (Colo.Ct.App. 2003) (noting that, on roofing job, "[p]laintiff acted as his own general contractor"); Cuero v. Ryland Group, Inc., 849 So.2d 326, 329 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App. 2003) ("Ryland undertook to devel

At best, the statement is more akin to one made upon information and belief, which is insufficient to show that Pamela could testify competently to it at trial. See Lazar Bros. Trucking, Inc. v. A & B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 559 (2006). ¶ 20 Plaintiffs briefly argue that, even in the absence of the stricken portion of Pamela's affidavit, facts remain that could infer that defendant had actual knowledge.

Abbott Electrical 10 Construction Co. v. Ladin, 144 Ill. App. 3d 974, 977 (1986). If, however, the owner does not request a sworn statement, the contractor is under no duty to give it (id.), and the owner is unprotected against having to pay twice for the same work (Lazar Brothers Trucking, Inc. v. A & B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill. App. 3d 559, 563 (2006)). If the owner requests a sworn statement, the contractor must give the owner the names of all parties furnishing labor or materials and the amounts due each of them, or to become due each of them, under oath or verified by affidavit. Deerfield Electric Co. v. Herbert W. Jaeger & Associates, Inc., 74 Ill. App. 3d 380, 385 (1979).

The Act is a comprehensive statutory enactment that outlines the rights, responsibilities, and remedies of parties to construction contracts, including owners, contractors, subcontractors, and third parties. Lazar Brothers Trucking, Inc., v. A & B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill.App.3d 559, 562, 302 Ill.Dec. 778, 850 N.E.2d 215 (2006) ; Struebing Construction Co. v. Golub–Lake Shore Place Corp., 281 Ill.App.3d 689, 694, 217 Ill.Dec. 177, 666 N.E.2d 846 (1996). The overall purpose of the Act is “ ‘to require a person with an interest in real property to pay for improvements or benefits which have been induced or encouraged by his or her own conduct.’ ”

Weather–Tite, 233 Ill.2d at 392, 330 Ill.Dec. 808, 909 N.E.2d 830. However, if the owner does not request a section 5 sworn affidavit, the contractor is under no duty to give it (Abbott, 144 Ill.App.3d at 977, 98 Ill.Dec. 924, 494 N.E.2d 1251 ), and the owner is unprotected against having to pay twice for the same work. Lazar Brothers Trucking, Inc. v. A & B Excavating, Inc., 365 Ill.App.3d 559, 563, 302 Ill.Dec. 778, 850 N.E.2d 215 (2006). Where the owner requests a section 5 sworn affidavit, the contractor must give the owner the names of all parties furnishing labor or materials and the amounts due each of them, or to become due each of them, under oath or verified by affidavit, and the necessary names cannot be supplied by reference to lien waivers or other documents. Deerfield Electric Co. v. Herbert W. Jaeger & Associates,