{ "id": 2587064, "name": "HELEN SICILIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF WESTCHESTER FIREFIGHTERS' PENSION FUND et al., Defendants-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Siciliano v. Village of WestChester Firefighters' Pension Fund", "decision_date": "1990-06-12", "docket_number": "No. 1-89-0286", "first_page": "964", "last_page": "967", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "202 Ill. App. 3d 964" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "547 So. 2d 886", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 7554457 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/547/0886-01" ] }, { "cite": "674 S.W.2d 27", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 9925056 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "32" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/674/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.E.2d 162", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 784", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2846766 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "787-88" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/9/0784-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 N.E.2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 69", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832377 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "100" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0069-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 N.E.2d 937", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 Ill. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3126692 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/109/0357-01" ] }, { "cite": "447 N.E.2d 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ill. 2d 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3111336 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" }, { "page": "217" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/95/0211-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 430, "char_count": 7302, "ocr_confidence": 0.751, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.8140785585390771e-07, "percentile": 0.7182092469483742 }, "sha256": "da23cfe5b5b31872ed746907d69841cf43183aea700c1fa99fea65eb6095b9be", "simhash": "1:bceb1481600bee33", "word_count": 1158 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:37.094110+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "HELEN SICILIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF WESTCHESTER FIREFIGHTERS\u2019 PENSION FUND et al., Defendants-Appellants." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BILANDIC\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, the widow of a suburban firefighter, received pension benefits from the defendant firefighters\u2019 pension fund until she remarried. When her second husband died, she sought reinstatement of the pension benefits. The defendant board of trustees of the pension fund denied her application, and the circuit court of Cook County subsequently reversed the board\u2019s decision. The issue on appeal is whether plaintiff is the unmarried surviving spouse of her first husband within the meaning of section 4\u2014114 of the Illinois Pension Code (Code) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 4 \u2014114). This is a case of first impression.\nThe relevant facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff, Helen Siciliano, was married to Patrick Airdo for 31 years. Patrick Airdo was a firefighter for the Village of Westchester for 25 years, and he contributed to its pension fund. He retired from the fire department in March 1981, and he died about one month later. During the ensuing five years, plaintiff received pension benefits until she married her second husband, John Siciliano, on September 14, 1986. On March 2, 1988, Mr. Siciliano died. Plaintiff applied to the board for reinstatement of her surviving spouse\u2019s pension, pursuant to section 4\u2014114 of the Illinois Pension Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. IO8V2, par. 4\u2014114(a).) After hearing arguments, the board issued its decision denying plaintiff\u2019s application for restoration of her surviving spouse\u2019s pension.\nThereafter, plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court, requesting reversal of the board\u2019s decision and reinstatement of her surviving spouse\u2019s pension. The circuit court reversed the decision of the board and ordered plaintiff reinstated to her surviving spouse\u2019s pension. The board appeals.\nWe are asked to interpret the phrase \u201csurviving spouse, while unmarried\u201d found in section 4\u2014 114 of the Illinois Pension Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 4\u2014114(a).) The parties disagree as to the construction of section 4 \u2014 114(a).\nThe statute provides, in pertinent part:\n\u201c\u00a74 \u2014 114. Pension to survivors. If a firefighter dies ***, a pension shall be paid to his or her survivors *** as follows:\n(a) To the surviving spouse, while unmarried, a monthly pension of 40% of the monthly salary ***.\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. IO8V2, par, 4 \u2014 114(a).\nNeither party has been able to cite any Illinois case construing this section of the statute, and our research confirms that such a case does not exist.\nThe board argues that the phrase \u201csurviving spouse, while unmarried\u201d is ambiguous, requiring the court to rely upon various canons of statutory construction to ascertain its meaning. Plaintiff contends that the phrase is clear and unambiguous and, thus, must be given its ordinary and popularly understood meaning. Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen\u2019s Annuity & Benefit Fund (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 211, 215, 447 N.E.2d 394.\nWe find the phrase to be plain and unambiguous. Plaintiff was the spouse of Lt. Airdo at the time of his death. By virtue of the death of her second husband, plaintiff is now unmarried. Therefore, under the ordinary and popularly understood meaning of \u201csurviving spouse, while unmarried,\u201d plaintiff comes within the plain meaning of the statute.\nThe board argues that plaintiff permanently lost her status as the \u201csurviving spouse\u201d of Lt. Airdo once she married Mr. Siciliano. But, implicit in this argument is that the term \u201csurviving spouse\u201d means a person married to a decedent at the time of his death and who remains in an unmarried state. Attaching this meaning to \u201csurviving spouse\u201d would render the latter portion of the phrase, \u201cwhile unmarried,\u2019-\u2019 superfluous \u2014 a practice which Illinois courts eschew. Niven v. Siqueira (1985), 109 Ill. 2d 357, 365-66, 487 N.E.2d 937.\nSection 4\u2014101 of the Code declares a legislative intent that the firefighters\u2019 pension fund is established \u201cfor the benefit of its [the municipality\u2019s] firefighters and of their surviving spouses, children and certain other dependents.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. IO8V2, par. 4\u2014101.) Pension laws should be liberally construed in favor of those whom the legislature intends to benefit. (Kozak v. Retirement Board of the Firemen\u2019s Annuity & Benefit Fund (1983), 95 Ill. 2d 211, 217, 447 N.E.2d 394.) A liberal construction of the phrase \u201csurviving spouse, while unmarried\u201d supports the conclusion that plaintiff falls \u25a0within the rubric of the statute.\nThe board argues that under other articles of the pension system (not applicable to the Village of Westchester fund), the benefits payable to a surviving spouse terminate upon remarriage. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 108\u00bd, pars. 3\u2014121, 5\u2014147, 6\u2014143.) We are urged to construe article 4 (which applies to the Village of Westchester fund) in the same manner so that plaintiff\u2019s benefits terminate on remarriage. This argument is misplaced.\nIn articles 3, 5 and 6, the legislature uses language that clearly expresses its intention to terminate the surviving spouse\u2019s benefits upon remarriage. In contrast, article 4 specifies that a surviving spouse shall receive benefits while unmarried. Therefore, under article 4, the surviving spouse\u2019s benefits are merely suspended by remarriage, while under articles 3, 5 and 6, remarriage terminates the surviving spouse\u2019s benefits. Because the legislature employed different language in the different articles, it can be presumed that the legislature intended different results. Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corp. (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 69, 100, 199 N.E.2d 769.\nWhere a particular provision appears in a statute, the failure to include that same requirement in another section of the statute will not be deemed to have been inadvertent. (See Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Earn (1973), 9 Ill. App. 3d 784, 787-88, 293 N.E.2d 162, appeal denied (1973), 53 Ill. 2d 608.) The legislature demonstrated its ability -.to terminate the surviving spouse\u2019s pension rights upon remarriage in articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Illinois Pension Code. If it wanted to terminate the surviving spouse\u2019s pension rights in article 4, it could have employed similar language and accomplished that result. The fact that section 4 \u2014 114 does not contain such language of termination is not inadvertent.\nWe therefore conclude that, under section 4 \u2014 114, the legislature did not intend to terminate the surviving spouse\u2019s pension rights upon remarriage, but intended merely to suspend that right during the period of remarriage. This result was reached in several out-of-State jurisdictions. See City of Henderson Police & Fireman Pension Board v. Riley (Ky. App. 1984), 674 S.W.2d 27, 32; Board of Trustees of Policemen\u2019s & Firemen\u2019s Retirement Fund v. Kennedy (Ala. Civ. App. 1989), 547 So. 2d 886.\nAccordingly, the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDiVITO, P.J., and SCARIANO, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BILANDIC" } ], "attorneys": [ "Thomas F. McGuire & Associates, Ltd., of Long Grove, for appellants.", "Andrew J. Creighton and Joseph C. Owens, both of Joseph C. Owens, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "HELEN SICILIANO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF WESTCHESTER FIREFIGHTERS\u2019 PENSION FUND et al., Defendants-Appellants.\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nNo. 1\u201489\u20140286\nOpinion filed June 12, 1990.\nThomas F. McGuire & Associates, Ltd., of Long Grove, for appellants.\nAndrew J. Creighton and Joseph C. Owens, both of Joseph C. Owens, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0964-01", "first_page_order": 986, "last_page_order": 989 }