Lohmann Golf Designs, Inc. v. Keisler

Full title: LOHMANN GOLF DESIGNS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Laverne KEISLER, et…

Court: Illinois Appellate Court, First District, Second Division

Date published: Feb 7, 1995

207 Ill. Dec. 226 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995)

207 Ill. Dec. 226

Opinion

646 N.E.2d 1313 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1995) 207 Ill.Dec. 226 LOHMANN GOLF DESIGNS, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. Laverne KEISLER, et al., Defendants. (Gewalt Hamilton Associates, Inc., Counter or Cross-Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Laverne Keisler, Alice Keisler, Melvin J. Thompson, Francis D. Thompson, and Charles Y. Thompson, Cross-Defendants/Appellees, Dean R. Crouse & Assoc., Inc., Carrowmore Development, Inc., Martin Jarrett, Inc., Lohmann Golf Designs, Inc., Thompson Dyke and Associates, Ltd., and Unknown Others, Counter or Cross-Defendants). No. 1-92-4434. Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Second Division. February 7, 1995.

Rehearing Denied March 9, 1995.

Barclay & Damisch, Ltd., Chicago (John W. Damisch, Michael Svanascini, of counsel), for Keislers.

Page 1314

[207 Ill.Dec. 227] Theodore W. Wroblewski, Chicago, for Thompsons.

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION

Justice DiVITO delivered the supplemental opinion of the court:

On March 22, 1994, this court filed its opinion in this case, affirming the judgment of the circuit court. (See Lohmann Golf Designs, Inc. v. Keisler (1994), 260 Ill.App.3d 886, 198 Ill.Dec. 62, 632 N.E.2d 121.) On October 6, 1994, the Illinois Supreme Court granted leave to appeal (No. 77155), and in the exercise of its supervisory authority ordered this court to reconsider its judgment in light of First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Connelly (1983), 97 Ill.2d 242, 73 Ill.Dec. 454, 454 N.E.2d 314. We have done so.

At first glance, Connelly seems to favor Gewalt Hamilton's position. In that case, a carpet installer filed a blanket lien against four apartment buildings for the $12,102 contract price, without apportionment among the four buildings. The court held that such a blanket lien was acceptable without apportionment, pointing out that the language of the Mechanics' Lien Act specifically authorizes the filing of liens against multiple properties but does not require an apportionment of the total claim among the specific parcels.

Had Gewalt Hamilton filed such a blanket lien, the supreme court's holding in Connelly would control this case. Gewalt Hamilton, however, filed three separate liens, each one for the full amount owing against all three properties. We find this situation to be substantively distinguishable from the situation in Connelly, therefore requiring a different result.

Following our reconsideration in light of Connelly, the judgment of the circuit court is still affirmed.

Affirmed.

HARTMAN and McCORMICK, JJ., concur.