{
  "id": 3585572,
  "name": "VIVIAN E. KOZAK, Indiv. and on behalf of all annuitants of Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kozak v. Retirement Board of Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund",
  "decision_date": "1988-05-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 87\u20140524",
  "first_page": "1095",
  "last_page": "1098",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "170 Ill. App. 3d 1095"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "384 N.E.2d 55",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 Ill. App. 3d 472",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3317907
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "474"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/66/0472-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N.E.2d 346",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. 2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2779039
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/12/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 U.S.C. \u00a7631",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "ADEA"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 4501,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.806,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2192936536813095e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5978178650569975
    },
    "sha256": "221cdaedf91ba0d8e38118efa3f75bf1d3edb51278288938e541e65ea3e3e554",
    "simhash": "1:182382e46a8bea99",
    "word_count": 739
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:52:57.912624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "VIVIAN E. KOZAK, Indiv. and on behalf of all annuitants of Firemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WHITE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff Vivian Kozak, after the 1970 death of her husband, a Chicago fire department battalion chief, applied to defendant Retirement Board of the Firemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (Board) for benefits. The Board notified her that she was entitled to monthly payments of a \u201cwidow\u2019s compensation annuity\u201d until December 22, 1978, which would have been her husband\u2019s 63rd birthday, and would thereafter be entitled to a lesser \u201csupplemental annuity.\u201d The Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 6 \u2014 140) provides that after the date on which a deceased fire fighter would have reached compulsory retirement age, the surviving spouse\u2019s annuity is reduced to 40% of the salary the fire fighter received at death. The Municipal Code of Chicago required fire fighters to retire at age 63 at that time. Kozak received monthly payments amounting to 75% of her husband\u2019s salary until 1978, when the payments were reduced.\nIn August 1986, Kozak filed a class action complaint alleging that the city\u2019s mandatory retirement age was a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. \u00a7631 (1986) (ADEA). The complaint asked that the Board be enjoined from computing widow\u2019s benefits based on any retirement age other than 70 and that the Board pay to members of the plaintiff class the amounts denied them because of the allegedly invalid retirement age. The trial court ruled that Kozak\u2019s claim was barred by the five-year statute of limitations, and she appeals.\nKozak correctly argues that where an obligation is payable by installments, the statute of limitations runs against each installment from the time it becomes due. (Light v. Light (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 502, 147 N.E.2d 346.) She therefore casts her complaint as an attempt to recover underpayments and contends that the statute of limitations does not bar claims on those installments paid less than five years before her complaint was filed. The Board responds by citing the case relied upon by the trial court, Brehm v. Sargent & Lundy (1978), 66 Ill. App. 3d 472, 384 N.E.2d 55, which held that the right to receive a pension is separate from the right to recover installments and \u201cmust be established by suit or otherwise, within the original statutory period which begins to run when the plaintiff first has the power to make the demand.\u201d (66 Ill. App. 3d at 474.) The parties have thus reduced this appeal to a single issue: whether Kozak\u2019s claim should be viewed as an attempt to recover installment payments or as an attempt to establish a right to a pension.\nThe structure of Kozak\u2019s complaint strongly suggests the appropriate conclusion: it contains little that can be interpreted as a mere attempt to recover underpaid installments. The complaint does not refer to any specific payment which Kozak received from the Board. It does not allege that any particular payment of a certain amount was less than the amount that she was entitled to. Nor does it seek any specific sum as the total of the Board\u2019s underpayment. Rather, the complaint asserts that the ADEA made the 63-year mandatory retirement age \u201cillegal, void and unenforceable,\u201d and that the use of that age to terminate the \u201cwidow\u2019s compensation annuity\u201d was also invalid. The complaint clearly indicates that the Board did not concede the right to the higher payment and that Kozak was seeking to establish that right by suit. We conclude that Kozak\u2019s complaint was an attempt to assert a cause of action which arose when the Board terminated the compensation annuity in 1978 and that the subsequent payments did not create new causes of action relating to that claim.\nWe hold that the complaint sought to establish a new legal right; that the trial court\u2019s reliance on Brehrn was proper; and that Kozak\u2019s claim was barred by the statute of limitations. We therefore affirm the order of the circuit court of Cook County.\nAffirmed.\nMcNAMARA and FREEMAN, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE WHITE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kevin M. Forde and Marshall E. LeSueur, both of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Fagel, Haber & Maragos, of Chicago (Maynard B. Russell, Steven J. Teplinsky, and James A. Roth, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "VIVIAN E. KOZAK, Indiv. and on behalf of all annuitants of Firemen\u2019s Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF THE FIREMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellee.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 87\u20140524\nOpinion filed May 18, 1988.\nKevin M. Forde and Marshall E. LeSueur, both of Chicago, for appellant.\nFagel, Haber & Maragos, of Chicago (Maynard B. Russell, Steven J. Teplinsky, and James A. Roth, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1095-01",
  "first_page_order": 1117,
  "last_page_order": 1120
}