No. 2-09- 0805 File d: 8-6-10

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ HANS FL

EISSNER, do in

g busi ness as ) Ap

peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court Hans Fl eissn er Buil ders, ) o f Win ne ba go Co un t y. ) Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, )

) v. ) No. 09-- CH--398 ) TIMOTH Y R. F ITZGER

AL D an d TRA CY E. ) FITZGERAL

D, ) ) Defe ndan ts-Appelle es ) ) (Th e C i ty of Roc kf ord W ate r D ep ar tmen t, ) Ho no r ab le Unknown Owners, and Nonreco rd Clai man ts, ) Ron

al d L . Pi rre l l o, Def endan ts). ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JU STI CEBO WMA

N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Pla int iff, Hans F l ei ssn

er, do ing busines s as H ans Fl ei ssn er Bu i l ders , appe al s the

ci rcui t court order dismissing

hi s c om pl ai nt on a m oti on f i l ed b y def endan ts, Ti mothy R. F i tzgera l d an d Tracy E. Fi tzgerald, pursuant to sect ion 2--619(a)(9) of t he Code of Ci vi l Procedu re (Code ) (735 ILCS 5/2
-- 619(a)(9) (West 2008)). We reverse and rem and. I. BACKG

ROUND On May 7, 2 009 , plai

ntif f f il ed hi s f irst am ended com

pla in t, which alle ged the fol

lowi ng. Pla int iff wa s in t he bu sin es s o f ge ne r al c o nt r ac t ing r es ide nt ial a nd co mmer cia l impr o ve men t s in northe rn Ill in ois an d so ut he rn

W i sc on si n . O n Ma y 15 , 20 06 , de f

en da n ts o ra l l y con tra cte d w i

thNo. 2-- 09--0805

-2-

pla int iff for a re model

i ng proje ct at def

endan ts' h ome i n R ockf ord. Pl ai ntif f perf orme d the

work between May 18, 2006, and March

1, 2007, withi

n the scope of the oral

contract and withi

n the scope of s ection 3 of

the M ech

an i cs Li en Act (770 IL CS 60/3 (West 200 8)). Plai ntif f b il le d defendan ts a to talof $ 183 ,1 22. 50 fo r t he project, of whi ch def endan ts paid $143,355.46. Af

ter apply in g a $1,200
cr ed it f or s ome dam

ag ed wi nd owsc r ee ns, pla int iff alle ge d t ha t de fen da nt s s t ill owe d $3 8,4 47. 04 f

or th e w ork perf orm ed un der the oral

con tra ct. Co unt I o f the am

ended com

pla in t pleaded a f

oreclosure cl ai

m of the me chan

ic 's l ie n t ha t pla int iff r ec o r de d o n Fe br ua ry 17 , 20 09 , in the sum of $48,456, which i ncl uded interest and attor ney fees. Coun

t II cons i sted of

a breach-of

-an-oral -contract clai

m . Coun t III was an unjus t -e nrichment cla im, alle gin

g that defenda

nts hav e unj ustly retained the

ben efi ts of pla in tif f' s servi ces i nth e impro vement of the property. Count IV pleaded quan tum mer uit , all

egi ng that pla

in tif f conf erred b en ef i ts up o n d efe nd an t s by imp r o ving t he ir p r o pe r t y and t ha t it wa s u nju st fo rde fen da nt s t o r et ain t he b ene fits wit ho ut pr o pe rly c o mpe nsa t ing p laint iff. On Ma rc h 18 , 20 09 , de f

en da n ts m ov ed to dis miss pla int iff's co mpla int in its e nt iret y pur sua nt to section 2--619 (a)(9 ) of the Co de because plaint iff violat ed p ro visions o f the Ho me Rep air and Remo deling Act

(Act) (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq. (We st 2008 )). Sp ec i f i ca l l y , de f en da n ts a rgue d th at, pla int iff bre ach ed th e A ct by

f ail i ng to work

un de r a w ri tten con tract pur suan

t to se cti on 1 5 of t he A ct (815 I LC S 5 13 /1 5 ( We st 20 08 ) ) an d b y failing t o pr o vid e d efe nd an t s a co py o f t he "H o me Repa i r: Kn ow Your Consum

er Righ ts" pamphlet pur suant to section 20 of the Act ( 815 ILCS 513/20 (West 2008)). Citin

g Sm i th v . Bogard , 37 7 I l l . A

pp . 3d 84 2, 8 48 (2 00 7) , de f

en da n ts a rgue d th at, because pla

in tif f' s vi olations of the Act consti

tut ed an "un

la wful act" under secti on 30 of the Act (815 ILCS 513/30 (West 2008)), the oral contract was void an d pla in tif f' s clai ms were barred.No. 2-- 09--0805

-3-

Plai ntif f responde d to defen

dants' m ot ion b y a rguin g that t he A

ct did n ot cl early provide an affirmative defense

to defendan

ts. The legi sl ative

hi story of the Act dem

onstrated t hat the Act was in tended t o p ro t ect homeo wner s fro m the fr aud ulent business pr act ices o f tho se c ont ractor s that dir ec t ly sol i ci ted of f er s f or w ork . Pl

ai n ti f f argu ed th at def en da n ts c on tacted h i m to per for m the work bec ause of hi

s previ ous work for Tr acy

's f ather. Thus, defen

dants did not fal

l i nto t he i ntended prot ectedcl ass of the A

ct. Fur t her , no cas e law a ddr esse d whe t her t he Act bar re d a c ont ra ct or 's
recovery under equitable cl

aim s, such as quantum

mer uit and un

jus t enrich me nt. Plai ntif f al so argued t hat t he A ct did no t bar him fro m re co ver ing u nde r t he t heo ry o f an o ra l co nt ra ct . F inally, pla int iff argued t hat defend ants should be equi tably esto pped from usin

g the Act as an aff

irm ative defen

se wh erede f en da nts un de rs tood an d r ec o gn ize d t he bind ing na t ur e o f t he ir o ra l co nt ra ct wit h pla int iff. On Jul y 1, 2009, th e tr

i al cou rt i ss ue d a wri tten ord er sta ti n g th at p l ai n ti f f f ai l ed to co mply wi th the provis ions

of the Act. Theref

ore, citin g Sm i th , pl ai nti f f wa s p rec l ude d f rom re co ver ingany amou nt that he cl ai

me d was due f or t he work performe d, wh et he rba se d u po n a leg al o ran eq uit ab le t he o ry. The trial

court dis mi ssed the com

pla in t with prej udic e and determi ned that the lie

n ref erred to in count I was void an

d unen forceabl e. The order incl

uded l anguag e purs

uan t to Suprem

e Court Ru le 304(a) ( 210 Ill. 2d R. 304 (a) ). Pl ai nti f f ti mel y appe al ed . On appe al , pl ai nti f f makesman

y of t he
sa me arguments, incl

uding: (1) hi s e quit able claims ar e no t bar re d by t he Act ; (2 ) t he legislat ive history of t he Act makes t he Ac t inapp lica ble t o t he fac t s a t ba r ; a nd ( 3) eq uit ab le estopp el pr ev en ts defen dants f rom asserti

ng the Act as an af

fi rmati ve def ense. II. AN AL YSIS Sec ti on 2--619 (a)(9 ) permits dis

missal wh ere the "claim

asserted ag ainst de fen da nt is barred by ot her aff

irm ative m att er avoidin

g the legal ef

fect of or defeat in

g the clai

m." 735 ILCSNo. 2-- 09--0805

-4-

5/2--619(a)(9) (West 200 8) . An "a ffi rmat ivematt er " in a sec t ion 2
-- 619 mot ion is so mething in the
na ture of a defens e that negates the c aus e of

action com

pl etel y . Tom Gei se Pl

umbin g, Inc. v . Ta

y l or , 396 Il l . A pp . 3d 28 9, 3 00 (2 00 9) . A

moti on to di sm i ss un de r s ec ti on

2- -6 19 ad m i ts a l l we l l -p l ed f ac ts int he com

plai nt an d al l reas onab l e i

nf eren ces that m ay be drawn there f rom. In re Chi

cag o Floo d Li ti ga ti on , 176 Ill . 2d 179, 184 (1997). We rev ie w de no vo a

di sm i ss al un de r s ec ti on

2- -6 19 o f the Code
. Tom Gei se Pl

umbin g, Inc. , 396 Ill . App. 3d at 300. We f i rs t re j ec t pl ai n ti f f ' s a rgum en t th at def en da n ts ar e eq uit ably est op ped fro m raising t he Act as an af fi rmati ve def ense at al l. Equi table estoppelwould ba

r defen dants f rom rai si ng the Act as a defense where : (1 ) th ere

were words

or con duc t by de f en da nts tha t am oun ted to a m i srep res en tation orcon ce al men t of ma terial facts; (2) defen

dants knew at the tim

e the representations were ma de that they were untrue; (3) t he t ru t h re spe ct ing defen dants' represen

tations was un

known to plai

ntif f wh en t he re pr ese nt at ions w er e made and when t he y we r e a ct ed up o n; ( 4) de fen da nt s int en de d o rr ea so na bly expected t hat t heir co nduc t or re pr ese nt at ions w ou ld be ac t ed up o n by pla int iff; (5) pl ai nti f f , i n g ood faith, r ea so na bly

rel i ed upon the repres en tations to hi s detri men t; a nd (6) pl ai nti f f ac ted , b ec au se

of such represen

tations or conduct, such that he woul d be prej udic ed

i f de f en da n ts were p er

m i tted to denythe truth

there of. Vaughn

v. Speaker , 126 Il

l . 2d 15 0, 1 62 -6 3 ( 19 88 ). P l ai n ti f f f ai l ed to argue any of t he si x el em ents of equi

table estoppelan

d f ai l ed to ad dr es s w h at m i srep re se n tati on s def en da n ts
ma de t o ind uc e p laint if

f' s det r iment al r elia nc e. T he r efo r e, we r eje ct pla int iff's cla im t ha t eq uit ab le estoppel bars de fen

dants f rom rai si ng the Act as an af

fi rmati ve def ense. Furth er, we rej ec t plai

nti f f 's arg um en t tha t the l eg i sl ati ve hi story an d s tatutor y i nte rpreta ti on of t he Act "do not pr ovid e fo r a pplicat ion" o f the Act in this ca se be cau se p laintiff was no t a "fly by
n i gh t" contracto r that solic ited bu si ne ss f rom de f en da n ts. W e d i sa gr ee th at th e A ct a pp l i es onl y toNo. 2-- 09--0805

-5-

contractors that soli ci

t busi ness and prey on t he publ

ic , because the un

am bi guous lan guage of the Act in dic ates that it appli

es t o "p er so ns e ng ag ed in t he bu sine ss o f mak ing ho me repai rs or rem odel i ng." 815 ILCS 513/5, 15, 20 (West 2008). Regardless of the legi sl ative hist o ry o f t he Ac t , t he pla in la nguageo f t he st at ut e d o es no t ind ica t e t ha t it ap plie s o nly t o p er so ns engaged i

n the sol i ci tation of ho me repair or remodel

in g busi ness . See Art isan De sign Bu ild, Inc . v. Bi l strom , 397 Ill . App. 3d

317, 327-28 (2009). Rat her, i

t applies to any

per so n who co nt ra ct s wit h a ho meo wn er fo rho me r ep air or remodeli

ng exceedi

ng $1,000. Bef ore pr oc eed ing t o p laintiff'sfi nal argument on appeal, we not e that in plai ntif f' s headi ngs, he argues that the trial

co ur t er re d in dismissing all cou nt s, includ ing his for eclo sur e and br ea ch- o fcontract clai

ms. However, plain

tiff 's a rg ume nt se ct io n fa ils t o ad dr es s w hy t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in dismissing

t he fo re clos ur e and bre ach- of- co nt ra ct co unt s. Ac co rd ingly, any arg ument s re lating t o t he dis mi ssal of c ounts I a

nd I I are f orfe i ted. 210 Ill. 2d R. 341 (h)( 7); Gay v. Frey , 388 Ill . App. 3d 827, 832 (2 009). We now consider plai

ntif f' s f in al argumen t, t hat equi

table remedi es areav ail ab l e to contractors in sp i te of their vi olations of the Act. We admonis h pl ai n ti f f f or h i s f ai l ur e to c l ea

rl y argu e th at b oth his qu an t um me ruit and his u njust -e nrichment cla ims sho uld no t ha ve be en dis miss ed
. T he br ief s ee ms to focus onl

y on the qu an t um me ruit count. Regardless of pla in tif f' s m edi ocre argument on thi s i ssue, we f i nd th e m i ni mal ref eren ce to both

coun ts III an d IV s uf f i ci en t to rev i ew

th e d i sm i ss al of b oth count s. The Act sets f

ort h the poli

cy beh in d it i n section 5: "Itis the publ ic policy of thi s State t hat

in or der t o s afegu ar d t he life, hea lth, pr o pe r t y, and p ublic wel

fare of i ts citizens, the busi

ness of hom

e repair and remodeli

ng i s a m atte rNo. 2-- 09--0805

-6-

affect ingthe publ

ic in terest. The Gene

ral Assem

bl y recogni

zes that im

proved
co mmunicatio ns an d ac cu rate repres en tati ons be twe en pe rs ons en gage d i n th e b us i ne ss of making hom

e re pai rs orremodel

in g and thei r consum ers will in crease consum

er confi dence, reduce the li

keli hood o f di sputes, an d p r o mo t e fa ir a nd ho ne st pr ac t ice s in t ha t bu sine ss in t his State." 81 5 ILC S 513/ 5 (West 200 8). Sec ti on 15 o f the Act re quir es t hat "a p er so n enga ged in the bu sine ss of home rep ai r or remodel in g" furn is h to his customer a wri

tt en con tract orwo rk or der t hat includes t he fo llowing: t he to talco st , includ ing

par t s and ma

terial s lis ted with reasonab le

particularity

and an y c harge f or an esti mate, an d the bus i ne ss n am e an d add ress . 815 IL CS 51 3/15 (W est 200 8). Section

15.1 of t he Act requires tha

t t he co nt ra ct or advise t he co nsumer befo re t he co nt ra ct is acce pt ed a nd execute d of any con tra ctual pr ov i si on th at requires the

consu mer to s ubm i t di spute s to b i

nd i ng arbi trati on or waive his ri

ght to a j ury

tria l
. It further provides that a consum er be gi ve n th e op ti on to a

cc ep t or reject the arbi trati on or jury -waiv er provisi on and that the consum

er must sign

his or her name in the
mar gin of t he co nt ra ct wit h t he word "a cce pt" or "re j ect" n ex t to t he provision. F ail

ure to advi se a consum er of the presence of a bin

din g arbitration clause or jury-wai ver clause or f ai l ur e to sec ur e t he
consum er si gna ture and necessary

acceptance o r rejection "shal l render nul

l an d void each cl

ause that ha s n ot been acc epted or re

j ected a nd s i gne d by

the c onsu

mer." 8 15 IL CS 51 3/15.1 (We st 2008 ). Section 30 o f the Act addresses "unlawf ul acts": "Iti s u nl aw f ul f or an y pe rs on engage d i n the busi ne ss of hom e repa i rs and r emod eling to re mod el or make r epa irs o r c har ge fo r r emod eling or repai r work b ef

ore obtaini

ng a si gned contract or work order over $1,0 00 an d be f ore not ify ing and s ecu ring the signed acceptan ce orre ject ion, by

the consu mer, of the bi nd i ng arbi trati on clause an d the jury trial

waiv er clauseNo. 2-- 09--0805

-7-

as required i

n Section 15 a

nd Section 15.1 of

this Act. Thi s conductis u nla wfu l bu t is not
ex cl us i v e n or m ea n t to li mi t o ther kin

ds of m ethods, acts, o r practices that may be unf ai r or dece pti ve ." 815 ILCS 513/3 0 (West 200 8). Sec ti on 35 o f the Act add re sses enfo rc ement . I t pr ovid es t hat t he Atto rney General ma y bring
an ac ti on i n th e n am e of the pe ople of t his st at e ag ainst any per so n or re st ra in and prev en t any pattern
orpr ac t ice in

violat ion o f the Act. "Al l rem edi es, penal

ties, an d authority gran

ted to the Attor ney General *** by the Consum

er Fraud and Decept iv

e Busin ess Pr ac t ice s Ac t sha ll

be av aila ble t o him
orher for enf orcemen t of t his Act , a nd any violat ion o f this Act shall co nst itu t e a vio latio n of t he Consum er Fraud and De ceptive Busi ness Practices A

ct" (Consumer

Fr aud A ct) (8 15 I LCS 513 /3 5( b) (We st 2008 )). Cou rtsh av e h el d th at, whi le the Act does not directly

provide a consumer with a priv

ate cause of ac ti on ag ai n st a c ont ra ct or who has vio late d t he Act , a co nsumer may fi le a claim unde r t he Consum er Fra ud Ac t pr ovid ed t hat t he co nsumer can p ro ve t hat t he co nt ra ct or 's vi olations of the Act caused his da mages . Bi

l strom , 397 Ill . App. 3d a t 3 29; Kunke l v. P. K. D epe ndable C ons t ru ct ion, LLC , 387 Ill . App. 3d

1153, 11 59-60 ( 2009); see also 815 ILCS 505 /2Z (Wes t 200 8) ( "A

ny pe rs on who kn o win gly

violat es * ** t he Ho me Rep air and Remo deling Act *** comm its an unl awful practice wit hin the mea ni ng of [the Consum

er Fra ud Ac t ]") . H ow ever , c ou rt s ar e divided on t he implicatio ns t he A ct h as on cl ai m s ot h er th an th ose b as ed i n th e C on su

mer Fr aud A ct, including qu an t um me ruit
. Quantum mer uit li terall y m eans " as m

uch as h e des erves." Fir st Na t io na l Ba nko f Sp r ing field
v. Mal practice Res earch, Inc. , 1 79 I ll. 2d 3 53, 365 (1 997 ). A par t y seek ingrecovery on thi s the ory must demo nst ra t e t he pe rfo rmance of se rvices by the p ar t y, t he co nferr al of t he be nef it of those servi ces on the pa rty f rom wh om rec ove ry i s s ough t, an d the u njus tne ss of the l atte r pa rty 's rete nti onNo. 2-- 09--0805

-8-

of t he bene fit in the ab sen

ce of an y com pen sati on. Fi rst National

Bank , 17 9 I ll. 2d at 36 5. S imila r ly, a plaint iff may ask t he co ur t t o r emedy t he fact t hat a de fendant was unjust ly enriched by impo sing
a contract where the

re wasno con

tract. Vil la ge of Bl oomin gdal e v. CDG Enterpri ses, Inc. , 19 6 I ll. 2d 484, 500 (2001). A quasi-contract , or co ntract impli ed in law, exist s indep ende nt of a ny agr eement or co nsent of t he pa rt ies and is im po sed in law to pr ovid e just ice for t he pla int iff. Vil la ge o f Blo o ming da le , 196 Ill . 2d at 500 . " Su ch an a ct ion is bas ed o n t he pri n ci pl e th at n o on e ou gh t to enrich himself unjustly at t he exp ense of a no ther." Villa ge o f Blo o ming da le , 196 Ill . 2d at 500. "Li ab i l i ty is based on the prin

ci ple of unj ust enri chm

ent and the contract is the remedy
. " ( E mph as is in origi na l .) Villa ge o f Blo o ming da le , 196 Ill . 2d at 500. Few cases hav e di scussed the A

ct and even fewe rhave di scussed

t he Act 's im

pact o n equitabl

e relief. Therefore, we briefl y survey exi sting case l aw th at a dd re ss es th e A ct. W i th t hese equ itable p rinciples in m i nd, the Fo ur t h Dist rict co nclude d in Bogard t hat t he pla int iff, wh

o f ai l ed to provide a wri

tt en contract, was obli

gated to compl

y w ith the A ct, faile d to do so, and was pr eclud ed fr om r eco ver ing any amou nt he clai med wa s due
. Bogard , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 848. The

courtstated t hat "[a]ll

owing a contracto r a method of recovery when he h as breach ed
ce r t ain pro vi si ons of the A ct wo uld run af oul of the legi slature's i

ntent o f prote cting consumers, would reward d eceptive practices, an d w o uld be vi olative of publ

ic poli cy." Bogard , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 84 8. The cou

rt th en ci ted to Amer ica n H o me As su r an ce Co
. v. Go lo mb , 239 Ill . App. 3d 37, 41 (1992), for the pro positi on that when a contractis void, t he co ur t s w ill as sis t ne it he rpa r t y and will le ave them

where they

have pl aced themsel

ves, an d Townsend v . Fassb in

der , 37 2 I ll. App. 3d 890, 902 (2007), for the pro positi on that t he doctrine of uncl ean h ands precl

udes a pa rty fro m tak ing advan tage of h i s own wrong . Wi

th thi s l i m i ted an al y si s, the courtco nc lud ed t ha t , in

add itio n t o t heNo. 2-- 09--0805

-9-

pl aint iff 's bre ach- of- co nt ra ct claim being barr ed, his equ itable c laims were also bar re d bec aus e he f ai l ed to co m pl y wi th th e A ct' s w ri tten con tra ct req ui re men t. In K. Mille rCo nst ruc t io n C o . v. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d 248, 250-51 (2009 ), appe al allowed , 234 Ill . 2d523 (2009), t he parties had en tered into an o ra l cont ra ct for home r emod eling
exce eding $150,000. The pla in tif f b uil der contended that its lie

n-f oreclosure and b

reach-of-contract cla ims sh oul d n ot b e b ar re d b y th e A ct' s w ri tten con tra ct req ui re men t. The Fi rst District disagreed, citing th e p l ai

n l an gu ag e of th e A ct, w hich req uire d a w rit t en co nt ra ct or wr itt en wo rk or der , a nd previous casesthat held the sam e. Mc Gin nis , 39 4 I ll. App. 3d at 253-54, citin g Bogard , 377 Ill . App. 3d at 848 ; Central Ill

in ois Electrical

Services, L.L.C. v. Sl epi an , 358 Ill . App. 3d 545, 550 (2005 ). The co ur t t hen disa gr eed wit h t he Fo ur t h Dist rict in Bogard an d h el d th at the pl ain t iff's eq uit ab le clai m und er qu an t um me ruit wa s n

ot b ar re d b y th e A ct. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 263. The court co ncl

uded that the oral con

tra ct b etw een

th e p ar ti es wa s u n l aw f ul un der the A ct. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 254 . The c ourt th

en con cl ude d that suc h a

n u nl aw f ul con tract did n

ot preclude the p l ai ntif f 's ri ght to purs

ue rec overy

und er qu an t um me ruit , be cau se t he Act did no t intend to precl ude e qui tabl e rel i ef
. Mc Gin nis , 39 4 I ll. App. 3d at 264-65. After fi rst concludi

ng that an oral contract was un amb igu o us ly unl awful under the Ac

t, t he court t hen

deci ded that "unlawful" was an
am bi guous t er m and

that, t hus , th e l

eg i sl atu re d i d n ot i nte nd to el i m i na te e qui tab l e re l i ef

f or co nt rac tor s. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 261-62. T he court reasoned that a reco very under qu antum mer uit did n

ot violate the publ

ic policy expresse d by

the Act, which sought to prevent dec ept ivepracti

ces by ba rri ng c ontractors f

rom r ecoveri ng th e con tract va l ue f or serv i ces . Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 262. The court stated t hat to hold ot herwi se would provi de cov er un der law to
a consum er's dishonest refusal

to pay for servi ces rendered, an

o ut co me t ha t wo uld in

crease di sputesNo. 2-- 09--0805

-10-

and busi ness costs and allow a h

omeowner to be unj ustly enriched at t he han

ds of an honest contractor. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 262-63. The dis senti ng j ustice argued

th at th e m aj ori ty
was sa nit izin g an actde cla r ed un law fu l by t he leg isla t ur e, by filt er ing it t hr o ug h a co ur t o f e qu it y. Mc Gin nis , 394 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 267 (W olf son, J ., d issent ing). While i t app ear ed in it s ca se t hat t he
con tractorneed ed p ro t ect ion mo re t han t he co nsumer (a savvy r ea l es t at e a t t o rne y), t he co ur t wo uld not have be en "w re st ling

with thi s i ssue if the contractor haddo ne wh at t he st at ut e c lea r ly t o ld h im to do- -put it in

writing." Mc Gin nis , 394 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 268 (W olf son, J ., di sse

nti ng)
. T his dis t r ict r ec en t ly held in Bi l strom that a c ontractor' s f

ail ure to prov i de

th e c on su mer ri gh ts broch ure pur sua nt to section 20 of the Act di d n ot pre cl ude a c ontr ac tor f rom pur sui ng eq ui tab l e or le gal rel i ef agai nst a cons um er tha t fa i l s to pay am ounts owe d. Bi

l strom , 397 Ill . App. 3d at 328-29. In re co gnizing that t he A

ct pro nounced the f

ai lure to provide a contract and notices of contractual pr ovisio ns "unl

awful acts" (citi ng Mc Gin nis ), t his court noted that t he f ai lure to provide the cons

ume r ri gh ts brochure was n

ot deem ed an "unlaw ful act " by

section 30 of

the Act and that the brochure was not re quir ed t o be a pa rt of t he co nt ra ct pur sua nt to s ec ti on 15 of th e A ct. Bi l strom , 397 Ill . App. 3d at 32 8. Ho we ve r , t his court reasoned that the fai lure to provide the cons

ume r righ ts brochure ma

y provide a consum er a priv ate cause of acti on under the Consum er Fraud Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2008) ). Bi

l strom , 3 97 I ll. App. 3d a t 326 -2 7. Thu s, w hile not dire ct ly addr essing t he is sue, Bi l strom re co gnized t he Act 's langu age in pro nou ncing the fai lure to provide a wri

tt en contract an "un l awf ul act." Most re cent ly, the Third Dist rict has issu ed c onflict ing o pinions o n t he Act . I n Rob erts v. Adkins , 397 Ill . App. 3d 858, 865 (2010), t he court held tha t an oralagreem

ent vi olated the Act

and th at, t hus, t her e wa s no valid co nt ra ct t o fo rm t he basis f ort he pla int iff's mec ha nic 's lie n. E qu it ab leNo. 2-- 09--0805

1 These cas es, a

l ong wi th our Bi l strom de ci si on, were rel

ea se d f orpubl ic ation af ter t he parties fi le d their b rief s i n thi s m atter . Subsequen

tly, we directl

y ordered the parties

to address these ca ses at or al argumen t, which they did on J une 1, 2010. -11- cla ims wer e no t ra ised in Adkins . A w eek a f ter Adkins was fi

le d, the Third Di

strict i ss ue d a n op i ni on hol di ng th e opposi te. Fande l v . Alle

n , 398 Il l . Ap p. 3d 17 7 (201 0). 1 In Al le n , the Third Di

strict de fi ed the pr ec ed ing ca se s ( inc lud ing it s p r ev io us ho ldin g in Slepi an) tha t he l d that the l

ac k of a w ri tten con tract i n v i ol ati on of t he Act 's "unl

awful acts" la nguage barreda c ontr

ac tor' s rec ove

ry un de r th e M ec ha

ni csLi en A ct. Ins tead, i t he l d that a

con tractor' s f ail ure to work

un de r a w ri tten con tract did n ot ba rit from

pursuin g ei ther legal or equitabl

e aven ues f orrel i ef
. Al le n , 398 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 185. It was undisp ut ed in Al le n t hat t he pla

in tif f di d not pro vi

de
a wr itt en co nt ra ct or t he co nsumer right s bro chur e t o t he def endan t. Al le n , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 179. It was also undi

sputed that t he pl

ai ntif f h ad provided the def

endan t a written work o rder but t ha t it
was no t sig ne d. Al le n , 39 8 I ll. App. 3d a t 179 . T he co ur t , in re ading t he plain langu age of t he sections we hav e ci ted herei n, concl uded that the purpose o f the A ct was to em

power the Attor ney General "to co rrect a po tential

harm ful pr act ice, not t o d eny an ho nest and c omp et ent wo rk man the fair va l ueof his w o rk n o rt o giv e a ho meo wn er a v alu ab le b en efit without p ayi ng for it." Al

le n , 398 I ll. Ap p. 3 d at 1 81. The co ur t st at ed t hat t he ho lding in Slepi an wa s l i m i ted i n th at i t h el d th at a
succ es sor contracto r was b oun

d b y th e A ct, an d th at Bogard read Slepi

an t o o br o ad ly whe n it he ld that the Act coul d be

use d asan

af f i rm ati ve def en se. Al le n , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 182-83. We first disag re e wit h Al

le n 's cha ra ct er izat ion o f the Slepi an cas e. In Slepi

an , the def

en da n ts rais ed t he fact t hat t he pla

in tif f f ai le d to provide a wri

tt en contract for work exceedin g $1,000 as an affirmative defens e t o t he plaint iff 's f orecl osure on a m ech an i c' s-l i en clai m . Slepi an , 358 Ill . App. 3dNo. 2-- 09--0805

-12-

at 547 -48 . The p l ai

nti f f arg ue d that the A

ct di d n ot ap ply t o it , be ca us e it took over th e w ork f rom another contracto r. The trial

cou rt agr ee d a

n d h el d th at th e p l ai n ti f f wa s e n ti tl ed to a mecha nic's lien. Slepi an , 358 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 548. The app el

l ate court r ev er se d o n t his issue, finding tha t des pit e t he chan ge i n con tra ctor s, th e A

ct a pp l i ed to t he plaint iff

beca use it w as c ont ra ct ing wit h t he hom eowner, and thus the tri al courtim properly found that the plai

ntif f was entitled to t he l

ie n wi thout co nsider ing the la nguage of the

Act, which "cl

early and un am bi guously require[d]" a si

gned contract. Slepi

an , 358 Ill . App. 3d

at 550 . The c ourt h

el d that, to th

e " ex ten t tha t the tri al cou rt' s r ul i ng s rel i ed upon a f i n di n g th at th e A ct was not applicabl

e, this c ause i s reversed an d reman ded for proceedin

gs consistent with this opin

ion." Slepi

an , 35 8 I ll. App . 3 d a t 55 0. In o ur pla in re ad ing o f Slepi an , we ca nn ot ag re e wi th Al le n t hat t he ho lding was lim

ited suc h t hat t he Act applie d to the pla in tif f b ut had
no ef f ect. The Al

le n cou rt' s rea son

i n g i s i l l ogi ca l i n th at i t re qui re s u s to ac ce

pt th at th e a pp el l ate courtrev ers ed an d re man de d the c au se

f or th e tri al cou rt to ag ai n r ule i n f av oro f t he p laint iff

on t he
me chan ic 's-l ie n iss ue bu t o n a diffe r en t ba sis wh en t he ap pe llat e c o ur t co uld ha ve si m pl y af f i rm ed on any basis i n the record. Mo ving on, the Al

le n court then reasoned that the Mech ani cs Li en A ct d i d n ot di f f eren ti ate between or al and wri tt en contracts (770 ILCS 60/1 et seq. (Wes t 200 8) ) a nd t hat , t hus, t he onl y que sti on in the c ase was whet her t he parties h ad a v al i d oral agree m en t. Al le n , 398 Ill . App. 3d

at 185-86. The court det ermi ned that the partiesha

d a va l i d ora l agree men t, de sp i te i ts v i ol ati on of t he A ct, and t hat t her efo re t he plaint iff 's l i en and f orecl osure a cti on we re val i d. Al le n , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 185 . T he cou

rt f ur th er re as on ed th at th e def en da n t cou l d p ur sue a

pri v ate right of a ct ion fo r t he plaint iff 's violations

of the Act through an

ac ti on un der the C on su

mer Fr aud A ct. Al le n , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 1 87 . B ec au se

of th e a v ai l ab i l i ty of relie f un

der the Consum

er Fraud Act, the purpose of the ActNo. 2-- 09--0805

-13-

was n ot r ende re d m

ea n i n gl es s b y th e p l ai n ti f f ' s r i gh t to s eek r el

i ef un der the M ech an

i cs Li en A ct. Al le n , 398 Ill . App. 3d at 187-88. Because Al le n det er mined t hat t he pla int iff's lien- fo r ec lo su r e c laim
was founded upon a v

alid c ontract , it di d n ot addre ss w hether the pl

ai ntif f 's equi tabl e cl ai m s we re val id. As st at ed ea r lier , pl ain t iff he r e f o r fe it ed an y arg um

en t t ha t he may ha ve ha d t ha t his f orecl osurecl ai m was val id. A ccordingl y, we n eed not consider

wh ethe r Al le n properly determi ned that the Act could n

ot be rai sed asan affirmat ivedefen se to t he l ie n-f oreclosure cl ai

m. F urther, we
arenot b oun d b y th e ou tcom es re ach ed or a n al y se s e m pl oy ed b y th e F i rs t, Th i rd , or F our

th Distr i ct, butwe kee p t heir p os itio ns i n m i nd w hi l e add ress i ng th e i ssue an ew. W e note that the

supr em e court hasyet t o p ro vide gu idance on t his issue. The majo r it y in Mc Gin nis highlighte d t he disse nt ing opi ni on in MD Ele ctrical

Co nt r ac t o r s, I nc . v. Abr ams , 228 Ill . 2d281, 30 9 n.5 (2008 ) (Fre em an , J., dis senti ng, j oin ed b y Burke , J.) and used the di ssen t's fa il ure to ci te Bogard in its f oot note as evidence that the Bogard

deci si on did n

ot answer the quantum

mer uit que st ion t o it s sat isfact ion. We dis agree on this point. The question bef

ore t he court in Abra ms wa s m ere l y whether th

e A ct a ppl i ed to a sub contrac tor, and the

maj ority he l d tha t it di d not. Abr ams , 228 Il

l . 2d at 29 6. The

courtt he n determi ned that t he pl

ai ntif f h ad forf ei ted it s qu an t um me ruit argum en t on app eal
. Abr ams , 22 8 I ll. 2d at 2 96 . Th

e d i ss en t poi n ted out th at th e m aj ori ty r elie d o n t he as su mpt io n t ha t t he Ac t co uld be used as an af fi rmati ve def ense, without addressi

ng whether that assumption was correct. Abr ams , 228 Il l . 2d at 30 0 (Fr

eem an , J., di sse

nti ng, j oin ed b y Burke , J.). In f

oot note 5, Justice Freem

an stated that he ex pr es se d n o o pin io n a s t o wh et he rt he leg isla t ur e in tended to aboli sh the com mon-l aw remedy o f qu an t um me ruit
. Abr ams , 228 Ill . 2d at 309 n.5 (Freeman, J., dissen ting, j oine d by

Burke, J.). Unlike t he majo r it y in Mc Gin nis , we do not ma ke the l eap from

what Justic e Freem

an stated, thatNo. 2-- 09--0805

-14-

he had no opi

ni on on th e i ssue other t han t h at th e m aj ori ty sh oul d h av e a n al y ze d th e iss ue , to
co nc lud e t ha t t he su pr eme court dis agreed wit h t he ho lding in Bogard . We t ake Jus t ice Fr eeman's word s on their f ace--that he bel

ie ved the court should h

ave an al yzed that issue

inste ad o f deeming it f orfei ted. We are l ef t to an sw er a

que sti on y et to b e a sked

of this di strict: Are equ itable remedi es, such
as qu an t um me ruit and un

jus t enrich me nt, availa ble to part ie s that entered an oral con tract i n v i ol ati on of t he Act ? W e f

i n d th at Bogard la cks suf fi ci ent anal ys is to persuade us t o fo llo w it an d t ha t t he lo gic in Mc Gin nis is mo re persuasi ve th at a vi ol ati on of the A ct does not prec l ude a c ontr ac tor f rom o bt aining eq uit able re lief. While we need n

ot address whe

ther an oral

contract may

support plain

tif f' s l egal cl ai m un der
a mech an i c' s l i en de sp i te t he Act 's wr itt en co nt ra ct re quir ement , o r st at ed d iff er ent ly, whet her t he Act
ma y be rai sed as an a ffirmati

ve def ense to bar a m

echan ic 's l ie n, we wi ll address whe

ther this oral contract vio lat es t he pu blic p o licy o f t his s t at e t o de t er mine w he t he rpla int iff may o bt ain eq uit ab le
re lief. Cou

rtswil l n ot enf orce a private agreem

ent that is contrar

y to publ i c pol i cy . Scen

tura Creations, Inc . v. Lo ng , 325 Ill . App. 3d 62, 69 (2 00 1) . Th e pub l i c p oli cy

of th i s state i s f oun d i n i ts
co nst itu t ion, its s t at ut es, and t he deci sions of i ts courts. Sce nt ur a Cr eat ions , 325 Ill . App. 3d at 69. In d eter mini

ng whe t her an ag re ement violat es p ublic po licy, co ur t s must det er mine whet her t he agr eement is c ap ab le o f pr o du cin g h ar m su ch t ha t it s e nfo r ce men t wo uld be co nt ra ry t o t he pu blic i n terest, bu t t he y willsp ar

i n gl y us e th ei r p owe r to inva lida t e a ll o rpa r t o f an ag r ee men t o n t he ba sis of pu blic p o lic y . Scentura Cr eat ions , 325 Ill . App. 3d at 69. The determi nation of whether anNo. 2-- 09--0805

-15-

agr eement i s con

trary to publ i c pol i cy depe nds on the f acts a nd c i rcum stan ces of the ca se. Scen

tura Cre at ions , 325 Ill . App. 3d at 69. Tu rning to the statut es in

volv ed in this case, the Act and the

Mechan ic s Lien A ct, we review de novo the

i nte rpreta ti on of a s tatute , a q

ue sti on of l aw. Ab ruzzo v. City

of Park Ridge , 231 Ill . 2d 324, 33 2 ( 20 08 ). Th e c ardi n al ru l e of sta tutor y con str uc ti on i s to asc er t ain and give effect t o t he i nten t of the l egi slature. Ab

ruzzo , 23 1 I ll. 2d at 332. The best indicat ion o f the legislat ur e's int ent is the statutory l

anguag e, gi

ven i ts plai n a nd ord i na ry mean i ng. Ab ruzzo , 231 Il

l . 2d at 33 2. Wh

en the statutory

langua ge is c lear a nd una mbiguo us, it must be appl i ed wi thou t res ort to oth er a

i dsof
co nst ru ct ion. Ab

ruzzo , 231 Il

l . 2d at 33 2. Whe n t he pla in lan gu ag e o f t wo st at ut es co nflic t s, we will attempt to construe them

together, in p ar i mat er ia , if su ch an int er pr et at io n is reas onab l e. Ab ruzzo , 231 Ill . 2d at 332. "Legisl ative i ntent remains the foremost co nsiderat ion, however." Ab ruzzo , 231 I ll. 2d at 332. In determin in g t h at i nt en t , we may c o nsid er t he st at ut es in t he ir e nt ire t y, t he ir purpo ses, the problem

s that they

tar get, and the

goal s the y see k to ach i ev e. Ab ruzzo , 231 Ill . 2d at 332. Wor ds a nd phr ase s sho uld be int er pr et ed no t in isolat ion bu t in the light of o t her re levan t pr ovisio ns of the statutes . Ab ruzzo , 23 1 I ll. 2d

at 333. H owev er, wh

en there i s a g eneral

statutory prov i si on an d a sp ec ific s t at ut o ry pr o visio n, t he sp ec ific p r o vis ion c o ntrols an d should be appl

ie d. Sag e I nfor matio n Ser vices v. King , 391 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 23, 102 9 (200 9). The Mechan

ic s Lien A ct stat es that a contract or is en titled to a li

en wh en he en ters a c on tra ct, "express or im

pli ed, or p ar tl y ex pr es se d or

i m pl i ed ," wi th a l an dow n er to m ake i m pr ov em en ts to t he la nd. 770 ILCS 60/ 1 (West 2008). However, even un der such b

road langua

ge, t he validity o f the contract may be at t ack ed. In Exc ellent Bu i l ders , In c. v . Pi on eer Tr us t & Saving s Bank , 15 Ill . App. 3d 832, 835-36 (1973) , the defen dant argued that the contract to bui ld a n off ic e bui ldi ng i n Ch ic agoNo. 2-- 09--0805

-16-

was il le gal because the construction of the bui ldi ng vi olated ci ty zoni ng ordin ances. The pl ai

n ti ff argued t hat even if t he co nt ra ct was ill ega l, t he do ct rine o f the balancing o f the de gr ee s of cul pa b i l i ty applie d. That doct rin

e provided

that as a gen eral rule, wh en two or morepe r so ns w er e e ng ag ed in
an un l aw f ul agree men t, th e l aw woul d n ot aid eit her and would leave the parti es where thei r conduct had place d them . Exc ellent Buil ders , 15 Ill . App. 3d at 836-37. Ho wever, an ex ception to that do ct rine applied where there existed a vast diff erence in the part ies'

de gre esof

turpi tude. Exc ellent Bui l ders , 15 Ill . App. 3d at 837. The co ur t ado pt ed t his do ct rine of t he ba l anci ng of the degree s of

cul pab i l i ty as to recovery b y mech an i c' s l i en an d dete rm i n ed th at i n i ts case the def

endan t acted with actual kn

owledgeof t he
co nt ra ct 's violation of

the c i t y or dinance s whe re as t he plaint iff had no act ual kno wledg e o f the
co nt ra ct 's vi

ola tion
. Exc el

l en t Buil ders , 15 Ill . App. 3d at 837-38. Accordin gly , the court determi

ned t hat uphold i ng th e v al i di ty of the c ontract woul

d not b e i nj urious to the pu

bl i c order a nd, i n f act , wo uld "me r ely p r ev en t t he mo r e c ulp ab le pa rty f rom benefit t ing fro m his own w ro ngdo ing, t her eby
co nt ribut ingto the publi

c ord er." Exc el

l en t Buil ders , 15 I ll. App. 3d at 838. T hus, even t hou gh t he ag r ee men t wa s ille ga l, t he co ur t de cid ed t ha t it co uld st ill up ho ld it on e qui tab l e c ons i de rati

ons f or t he pu rp os es o f the mechanic's lien. In re ad i n g th e M ec ha nic s L ien Ac t , we kn o w t ha t a c o nt r ac t o rwh o is e nt it led t o a lie n is defi ned as any person "who sh

all b y a ny contract or co ntracts, express or im pli ed, or part ly

expresse d
or i m pl i ed," mak e impr o veme nt s u po n land . 7 70 IL CS 60 /1 (a ) ( Wes t 20 08 ). Se ct io n 39 o f t h e Mechan ic s Li en A ct stat es that t he act shall

be l ib erall y construed as a remedial

act. 770 ILCS 60/39 (West 200 8). Th e M ec ha ni csLi en A ct doesnot

re fere nce t he Act or o therwis e di stin guis h be tween
a contracto r and those contracto rs that ar e in t he bu sine ss o f ho me repair or remodel in g. Therefore,No. 2-- 09--0805

-17-

t he Act i s m

ore specif ic in appl yi ng to t hose contracto rs that are in the busi ness of hom e repa i r or re mod eling

and ex pl i ci tl y req ui res a w ri tten con tract f orspecifi c types of servi ces that exceed $1,000. 815 IL CS 51 3/10, 1 5, 30 (W est 200 8). Tu rning to the facts of this case, we hav e a st at ut e t ha t de cla r es t ha t t he bu sine ss o f ho me r ep air o rr emo de ling affe ct s t he pu blic inter est and t hat impro ved a nd ac cur at e co mmunicatio ns between co nt ra ct or s and co nsumer s will have a po sitive e ffect on t he publ i c i nterest. 815 IL CS 513/5 (West 200 8) . We al so have a s tatut e that declares tha

t it is a n unl awful act f or a contractor to work withoutfirst obt ain in g a signed contract or work o rder for work o ver $1,000. 815 ILCS 513/30 (West 2008). Additionall y, previous judici

al deci sions ( Slepi

an , Mc Gin nis , Bogard , Bil s trom , a nd Adkins ) have e ither s

peci fi cally hel d or o therwis e acknowledged tha t i t i s u nl aw f ul f or a c ontr ac tor to perform s

uch work without a w rit t en co nt ra ct . Fu rt her , u nlike in Exc el l en t Buil ders wher e t he pla int iff was the lesscul

pabl e party, i t is the contractor here who contro ll ed whether

he perf ormed work f or the consum

er; the con tractorwho sho uld have kno wn t he laws t hat app ly to him; and t he contractor who was

requi red to prep are an d o bt ain a signed contract under the Act. However, we also h av e a con tra ctor wh o di d n ot s eek ou

t th e c on su

mer or f ai l to perf orm un der the c on

tra ct. Addit ionally, we have a co nsumer who admit t ed t o t he exi stence of an oral contract, admi

tt ed that work wa s p erforme d per the agreem ent, and adm

itted to hav

in g pai d nearl

y a ll of the contract
amoun t. While t he st at ut e r eq uir es a w r it t en co nt r ac t , we ca nno t sa y t ha t t he o r al c o nt r ac t in t his
case vio lat ed t he pu blic pol i cy be hi nd the A ct, a s w e do not

have a co nsumer who was dec eived by
a "fl y b y n igh t" co ntract or. Rather, t he case i nvolv es an hon es t con

trac tor se ek i ng pa y men t f or performe d

ser vices, which t he co nsumer co nt ends wer e de valued by alleged d amage incur re d du ring the work.No. 2-- 09--0805

-18-

Having co nc lud ed t ha t t he o r al c o nt r ac t in t his ca se doe s n ot vi ol atethe publ i c p ol i cy

of t his state, we n

ex t consi der wh ethe r equi tabl e rel i ef thro ugh qu an t um me ruit o run jus t en r ich men t is
av aila ble t o a c o nt r ac t o rr elyi n g upon an oral c ontract despi te the Act's requi

remen t t hat a written contract exist f

or certai n h ome repai r or rem odel i ng work. On thi s i ssue, we a gr ee w ith Mc Gin nis that th e A ct l acksan y cl ea r a n d p l ai n i n ten t to elim in ate equitabl

e reme die s avai

l ab l e u nd er c om mon la w. Mc Gin nis , 39 4 I l l . A

pp . 3d at 2 57 -5 8. Furth er , like in Mc Gin nis , there is n ot hi ng pl eaded st at ingthat plai

ntif f was i nv olv ed i n a ny dece pti ve practi ces . Mc Gin nis , 394 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 259. The Mc Gin nis court dis counted Bogard' s p osi ti on th at allo win g qu an t um me ruit recovery on a n oral contract wo uld rewa

rd dec epti ve practi ces and woul d vi ola te pub l i c pol

i cy . Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 260 . While t he Act 's purpose was to elim in ate deceptive practices by

ma kin g a written contract
r eq uir ed fo rce r t ain t ype s o f ho me repai r or rem odel i ng, an oral con tract by i tse l f i s n ot a de cep t ive practice. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 260. Where unf ai r and di shonest conduct t hat the Act in tended to el i m i na te i s n ot pre sent, the

f ai l ure to work under a wri

tt en contract is a " techni cal def i ciency," wh

i ch doe s n ot bar re co ver y by the contractor unde r equi tabl e the orie s. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 260. We fur t her agr ee w ith Mc Gin nis that allowi ng recovery

under eq ui tab l e theori

eswoul d n

ot defea t t he pu rp os e o f the Act . T he pur po se o f the Act is to pr ot ect co nsumer s fro m "fly by n i gh t" dec ept ivecontracto rs, not t o bar an honest co nt r ac t o rfr o m re co ve r ing fo rse rvic es ac t ua lly performe d. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 26 0. T o ho ld

ot herwi se would al

low a consum

er to renege on an o t he rwis e v alid oral contract after work is perform ed and en joy the ben efi ts of hi s i mproved property at the expe

ns e of the c ontractor. Mc Gin nis , 394 Ill . App. 3d at 260-61.No. 2-- 09--0805

-19-

The Mc Gin nis co ur t co nsid er ed t he t er m "u nla wfu l" in its d et er minatio n t hat not hing in the Act sug ges t ed t he legislat ur e's i n ten t to repeal all f orms of equi

table remedi es. The court co ncl

uded that "unlawful ," a broadand gen eral term, did n

ot "convey

a cl ear expressi

on by the le gis la

ture t hat i t i nte nd ed to rep eal more th an a c en tury of com mon law." Mc Gin nis , 3 94 I ll. App. 3d a t 261 . At b est, t he co ur t st at ed, "unlaw ful" was ambiguo us a nd do ubt ful in conve ying an intent to ab rog ate t he
comm on-law equi

table re medi

es. Mc Gin nis , 39 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 26 2. Mo r eo ve r , t he eq uit ab le remedi es ar e no t base d o n a co nt ra ct , a nd r ec o ve ry is l i

m i ted to no m ore th an what the c ontr

ac tor d ese rv es f

or serv i ces ren dered
. Mc Gin nis , 3 94 I ll. App. 3d a t 262 . We agr ee w ith Mc Gin nis and ho ld t hat dec laring a n oral co ntr ac t "u nl aw f ul " doesnot a

f f ec t a c ontr

ac tor' s a bi l i ty to rec ove

r f or work already

performed under equitable rem edies. Fo llowing the briefi

ng i n thi s case, the l

egi sl ature passed Senate Bi ll 254 0, whi ch am

ends section 30 of the Act, as foll ows: "Ac t io n fo r a ct ua l da mag es . A ny pe rs o n wh o su ffer s a ct ua l da mag e a s a re su lt o f a vi ol ati on of thi s Act m

ay bri ng an action pursuan

t t o Section 10a

of t he Co nsumer Fra ud a nd Dec ept ive Bus iness P ra ct ices Act ." 96t h Ill . Gen. Assem., Senate Bil l 2540, 2009 Sess. The bill was first re ad in t he Se nat e o n Janu ar y 12, 201 0, and ev en tu al l y pa ss ed an d took effe ct Ju ly 12 , 20 10
. T he ame nd men t co mple t ely re moves t he "unlawful " lan guage and pro vides a pri v ate r igh t o f ac t io n u nd er t he Co nsu me r Fraud A ct . Whe n t he legislat ur e amend s a st at ut e by delet ingcertain l

anguage, i

t is presum

ed to have i

ntended to change

the la w in that resp ect. KSAC Corp. v. Recycl

e Free, Inc. , 364 Ill . App. 3d 5 93, 597 (2 006 ). The legislat ur e is pr esu med t o ha ve been awa re of jud icial decisio ns inter pr et ing t he st at ut e and t o ha ve acted with such knowle dge when amending th e statute. Mo rris v . Will ia m L . Dawson Nursi

ng Cen ter, I nc. , 187 Ill . 2d 494, 499No. 2-- 09--0805

-20-

(1999 ). Thus, we presum

e that the le gis la

ture knew of the Mc Gin nis , Bogard , Bi l strom , Slepi an , a nd Abr ams de cis io ns w he n it int r o du ce d t he ame nd ed bill. Ge ne r ally, de l eti

n g l an gu ag e i n a statu te r es ult s inth e p re su

m pti on th at th e i n ten ti on wa s to chan ge th e l aw , but th at pre su m pti on may b e ov ercom e w h ere th e n atu reof th e a men dm en t su gg ests that the draf ters i nten ded to i nterpret or clarif

y the ori gi na l statute. Fri edm

an v . Krupp Corp. , 282 I ll. App. 3d

436, 444 (1996). Here, t wo cases had i n ter pr ete d th e e f f ec t of "u n l aw f ul " i n opp osi te way s-- Mc Gin nis (eq

ui tab l e re medi esnot

barred) and Bogard

(e quit able re medies ba rr ed) . T he presum ption thatthe del etion of the " unl awful" l anguage was

an i nte nt to c ha ng e the l aw doe s n ot lo gic ally ap pl y, be ca us e it i s un

clear w hi ch i nterpretation of

the l aw was to be c

ha nge d-- Mc Gin nis 's i nte rpreta ti on or Bogard's. I t see ms mor e likely that t he legislat ur e's c hange in the lang u ag e of
se cti on 30 wa s to cl

ari f y th e or i gi n al sta tute such th at thereis

no question that equi

table remedi es r ema in av aila bl e and that a consumer' s priv ate right of action is

directl y i ncl uded i n the Consum

er Fraud Act . T her efo re , w e find t hat t he su bs eq ue nt a men dm en t to se cti on 30 s upp orts ou

r con cl us i on in this case t ha t t he leg isla t ur e d id

not intend t o mak e o ra l cont ra ct s for home r epa ir o r r emod eling unl awf ul such that a con

tractor i s b arred

f rom r ecoveri ng u nde r com mon-l aw eq ui tabl e the ori es . Rather, the Act i

ntended that consum

ersmay recover un

der the Con sum

er F raud A

ct when they are i n j ur ed b y oral con tra cts i n v i ol ati on of th e A ct. In co nclusio n, w e find t hat t he oral con tract be twe en pl ai nti f f an d de f en da nts di d n ot v i ol ate t he pu blic po licy o f thi s state as codif ie d in the Act, and accordi

ngl y, equi table reli ef rem ai ns an av aila ble remedy

to pla in tif f, a contractor seeking to enf orce the contr act . Theref

ore, we r ever se t he judgm ent of the circuit cour t o f W in nebago Count y an

d remand the cause for further pro ceedings.No. 2-- 09--0805

-21-

Reversed a

nd rem anded. ZENO FF , P.J., an

d SCH OSTOK

, J., con cur.