{
  "id": 252237,
  "name": "CARMELLA WALTER HORAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF POLICEMEN'S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Horan v. Retirement Board of Policemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund",
  "decision_date": "1995-05-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 1\u201493\u20143118",
  "first_page": "1014",
  "last_page": "1017",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 Ill. App. 3d 1014"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "560 N.E.2d 885",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 3d 964",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2587064
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "967"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/202/0964-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 U.S. 519",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6158216
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/331/0519-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "587 N.E.2d 61",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ill. App. 3d 950",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5251454
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/224/0950-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "637 N.E.2d 641",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ill. App. 3d 744",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        887193
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "751"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/266/0744-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 326,
    "char_count": 5337,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.009913705393634918
    },
    "sha256": "f326ef5b64563dc25b483122f19ca84535bac41967e71794ef7d858191aa6b7a",
    "simhash": "1:7e45d8d36d4d3618",
    "word_count": 844
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:46:33.224419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CARMELLA WALTER HORAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF POLICEMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE SHEILA O\u2019BRIEN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, the Retirement Board of Policemen\u2019s Annuity & Benefit Fund of the City of Chicago, made annuity payments to plaintiff, the widow of a Chicago police officer, until she remarried on November 26, 1989, at the age of 55. Defendant stopped making payments pursuant to section 5 \u2014 147 of the Illinois Pension Code then in effect, which provided \"[i]f a widow remarries before reaching age 60, annuity payments shall be suspended, but the widow\u2019s annuity payments shall be resumed if, within one year after such payments were suspended, the subsequent marriage ends either by dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage or the death of the husband.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 1081/2, par. 5 \u2014 147.) Plaintiff\u2019s second husband died on June 28, 1992, and plaintiff asked defendant to reinstate her annuity benefits pursuant to amended section 5 \u2014 147, effective January 14, 1991. The 1991 amendment removes the one-year limitations period and provides \"the widow\u2019s annuity payments shall be resumed if the subsequent marriage ends either by dissolution of marriage, declaration of invalidity of marriage or the death of the husband.\u201d (40 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 147 (West 1992).) Defendant denied her application and plaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review in the circuit court of Cook County. The court reversed defendant\u2019s decision, ruling plaintiff was entitled to the resumption of benefits. Defendant appeals. We affirm.\nDefendant argues section 5 \u2014 147, in effect when plaintiff remarried and when she and her husband celebrated their one-year anniversary, permanently terminated plaintiff\u2019s annuity benefits when her remarriage lasted longer than one year. Plaintiff contends section 5 \u2014 147 then in effect merely suspended her benefits. Further, plaintiff argues amended section 5 \u2014 147, in effect at the time of her second husband\u2019s death, requires defendant to resume payment of her annuity benefits.\nWe agree with plaintiff. Section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989 states annuity benefits are suspended when a police officer\u2019s widow remarries before reaching age 60. Although the statute provides for the resumption of benefits if the marriage ends within one year, it does not state benefits are terminated if the marriage lasts longer than the one-year period. Therefore, we conclude the legislature intended the annuity benefits to remain suspended if the marriage lasts longer than one year.\nWe find support for our holding by comparing the language in section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989 with the language in its predecessor statute. The predecessor statute stated \"[a]ny annuity granted to a widow shall terminate when she remarries.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 1081/2, par. 5 \u2014 147.) By contrast, section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989 states \"any annuity granted to a widow shall be suspended when she remarries.\u201d (Emphasis added.) (111. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 1081/2, par. 5 \u2014 147.) Since the later statute replaced the word \"terminated\u201d with \"suspended,\u201d we presume the legislature intended to change the 1965 law. Orland Fire Protection District v. Intrastate Piping & Controls, Inc. (1994), 266 Ill. App. 3d 744, 751, 637 N.E.2d 641.\nDefendant argues the title of section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989, \"[wjidow\u2019s marriage to terminate annuity,\u201d demonstrates a contrary intent. However, the title of a statute is useful only when it sheds light on an ambiguous word or phrase. (People v. Lamb (1992), 224 Ill. App. 3d 950, 587 N.E.2d 61; Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen v. Baltimore & Ohio R.R. Co. (1947), 331 U.S. 519, 91 L. Ed. 1646, 67 S. Ct. 1387.) We find no ambiguity in the text of section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989, which clearly states annuity benefits are suspended when a police officer\u2019s widow remarries before reaching age 60.\nDefendant argues we came to the opposite conclusion in Siciliano v. Village of Westchester Firefighters\u2019 Pension Fund (1990), 202 Ill. App. 3d 964, 967, 560 N.E.2d 885, when we stated \"[t]he legislature demonstrated its ability to terminate the surviving spouse\u2019s pension rights upon remarriage in [then-section 5 \u2014 147.]\u201d However, in Siciliano we were interpreting section 4 \u2014 114 of the Pension Code, not then-section 5 \u2014 147. Our statement concerning section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989 was dicta and is not binding upon us in this case.\nHaving determined section 5 \u2014 147 in effect in 1989 merely suspended plaintiff\u2019s annuity benefits, we next conclude the 1991 amendment requires defendant to resume those payments. The amended statute, effective January 14, 1991, requires the resumption of annuity payments when the second marriage ends by the death of the spouse, even if the death occurs more than one year after the date of the marriage. Plaintiff\u2019s second husband died after the effective date of the amended statute, and therefore plaintiff is entitled to the resumption of her benefits.\nAffirmed.\nHOFFMAN, P.J., and CAHILL, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE SHEILA O\u2019BRIEN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David R. Kugler, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Rock, Fusco, Reynolds & Garvey, Ltd., of Chicago (Kevin W. Horan, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARMELLA WALTER HORAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RETIREMENT BOARD OF POLICEMEN\u2019S ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO, Defendant-Appellant.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 1 \u2014 93\u20143118\nOpinion filed May 25, 1995.\nDavid R. Kugler, of Chicago, for appellant.\nRock, Fusco, Reynolds & Garvey, Ltd., of Chicago (Kevin W. Horan, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1014-01",
  "first_page_order": 1032,
  "last_page_order": 1035
}