{ "id": 1026022, "name": "JEAN CIRIGNANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES', OFFICERS', AND OFFICIALS' ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Cirignani v. Municipal Employees', Officers', & Officials' Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago", "decision_date": "2000-11-22", "docket_number": "No. 1-00-1751", "first_page": "732", "last_page": "736", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "317 Ill. App. 3d 732" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "729 N.E.2d 878", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "interpreting 40 ILCS 5/5 - 227 (West 1994)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "313 Ill. App. 3d 546", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 186556 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "551", "parenthetical": "interpreting 40 ILCS 5/5 - 227 (West 1994)" }, { "page": "551" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/313/0546-01" ] }, { "cite": "382 N.E.2d 243", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "interpreting section 14 - 199 of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. IO8V2, par. 14 - 199)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "72 Ill. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5442891 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "513", "parenthetical": "interpreting section 14 - 199 of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. IO8V2, par. 14 - 199)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/72/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "687 N.E.2d 866", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 Ill. 2d 360", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 385559 ], "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/178/0360-01" ] }, { "cite": "604 N.E.2d 923", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 Ill. 2d 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5603181 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "379" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/152/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "692 N.E.2d 1217", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 Ill. App. 3d 728", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 45720 ], "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "733" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/295/0728-01" ] }, { "cite": "590 N.E.2d 1032", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 Ill. App. 3d 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5793736 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/227/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "584 N.E.2d 865", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 Ill. App. 3d 1071", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5263990 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1075" }, { "page": "1075" }, { "page": "1075" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/222/1071-01" ] }, { "cite": "726 N.E.2d 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 Ill. App. 3d 1053", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 415290 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1059" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/311/1053-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 516, "char_count": 9035, "ocr_confidence": 0.764, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1393950669230157e-07, "percentile": 0.5780800347819506 }, "sha256": "d43fb9d0cea763c35a9f93fff726f13ecadf361120a619829fbcad44bf78431b", "simhash": "1:8ac3bf9ebc5bbf10", "word_count": 1506 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:16:30.528913+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JEAN CIRIGNANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES\u2019, OFFICERS\u2019, AND OFFICIALS\u2019 ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE CERDA\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff, Jean Cirignani, appeals from the determination that she is not eligible to receive a widow\u2019s annuity from defendant Municipal Employees\u2019, Officers\u2019, and Officials\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago (the Fund) after the death of her husband, who was an employee of the City of Chicago (the City). Plaintiff was convicted of a felony in connection with her being a ghost payroller for the City. Plaintiff contends that a statute that disqualifies persons from receiving annuity benefits if they have been convicted of a felony in connection with their municipal employment does not disqualify her from a widow\u2019s annuity based on her deceased husband\u2019s employment with the City of Chicago. We find that she is entitled to a widow\u2019s annuity.\nFACTS\nBy statute, there is established a Municipal Employees\u2019, Officers\u2019, and Officials\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund for cities of more than 500,000 inhabitants. 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 101 (West 1998). A widow of an employee of the City of Chicago under this statute is entitled to a widow\u2019s annuity. 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 140 through 8 \u2014 150.1 (West 1998). A male employee is required to contribute l1/2% of his salary toward a widow\u2019s annuity. 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 182 (West 1998). The annuity is funded in part by a real property tax. 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 173(a) (West 1998).\nPlaintiff was disqualified from her own pension from the City of Chicago due to her conviction of a felony arising out of her employment with the City. She had received a salary and benefits for 12 years as a full-time employee of the Chicago city council\u2019s committee on traffic control and safety although she performed no work. Plaintiffs hxisband, Vincent Cirignani, had also been employed by the City of Chicago. Out of Vincent\u2019s salary a deduction was taken for his pension; an additional deduction was taken for the purpose of providing a widow\u2019s annuity. The City made an additional contribution toward the annuity.\nWhile married to plaintiff and after retirement, Vincent died. Plaintiff was paid a widow\u2019s annuity for some time; she received a notice on July 6, 1999, that there would be a hearing to determine whether her payments should be terminated based on her felony conviction, pursuant to statute. 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 251 (West 1998). On January 20, 2000, the Fund determined that plaintiff was not entitled to receive a widow\u2019s annuity.\nPlaintiff filed a complaint for administrative review with the circuit court of Cook County. The trial court affirmed, and plaintiff appealed.\nANALYSIS\nThe felony-conviction statute at issue provides in relevant part that \u201c[n]one of the benefits provided for in this Article shall be paid to any person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of or in connection with his service as a municipal employee.\u201d 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 251 (West 1998). This is similar to language used in numerous other felony-conviction statutes governing other public employees. See 40 ILCS 5/2 \u2014 156, 3 \u2014 147, 4 \u2014 138, 5 \u2014 227, 6 \u2014 221, 7 \u2014 219, 9 \u2014 235, 11 \u2014 230, 12 \u2014 191, 13 \u2014 807, 14 \u2014 149 (West 1998).\nPlaintiff contends that she is entitled to the widow\u2019s annuity because another statute, concerning which widows are entitled to an annuity from this fund, does not provide that the widows who have been convicted of felonies in connection with municipal employment are ineligible for annuities. Defendant contends that the plain meaning of section 8 \u2014 251 is that no person convicted of this kind of felony can receive benefits and that section 8 \u2014 251 simply adds an additional ground for a widow to be ineligible for pension benefits.\nThe widow-eligibility statute provides:\n\u201cThe following widows or former wives of employees have no right to annuity from the fund:\n(a) The widow, married subsequent to the effective date, of an employee who dies in service if she was not married to him before he attained age 65;\n(b) The widow, married subsequent to the effective date, of an employee who withdraws from service whether or not he enters upon annuity, and who dies while out of service, if she was not his wife while he was in service and before he attained age 65;\n(c) The widow of an employee with 10 or more years of service whose death occurs out of and after he has withdrawn from service, and who has received a refund of his contributions for annuity purposes;\n(d) The widow of an employee with less than 10 years of service who dies out of service after he has withdrawn from service before he attained age 60;\n(e) The former wife of an employee whose judgment of dissolution of marriage has been vacated or set aside after the employee\u2019s death, unless the proceedings to vacate or set aside the judgment were filed in court within 5 years after the entry thereof and within one year after the employee\u2019s death, and unless the board is made a party defendant to such proceedings.\u201d 40 ILCS 5/8 \u2014 152 (West 1998).\nOur standard of review is de novo because this issue concerns statutory interpretation. First Bank & Trust Co. v. King, 311 Ill. App. 3d 1053, 1059, 726 N.E.2d 621 (2000).\nThe overriding objective in interpreting a statute is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature. Roser v. Anderson, 222 Ill. App. 3d 1071, 1075, 584 N.E.2d 865 (1991). To ascertain the legislature\u2019s intent, we first look to the plain language of the statute. Burnett v. Safeco Insurance Co., 227 Ill. App. 3d 167, 173, 590 N.E.2d 1032 (1992). Language is to be given its ordinary and popularly understood meaning. Roser, 222 Ill. App. 3d at 1075. In addition to the language chosen by the legislature, the court should consider the reason for the law, the evil to be remedied, and the purpose to be obtained thereby. Roser, 222 Ill. App. 3d at 1075.\nThe express mention of one thing in a statute excludes all other things not mentioned. Requena v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board, 295 Ill. App. 3d 728, 733, 692 N.E.2d 1217 (1998). Where there exists a general statutory provision and a specific statutory provision that relate to the same subject, the specific provision controls and should be applied. People v. Villarreal, 152 Ill. 2d 368, 379, 604 N.E.2d 923 (1992).\nThe language of pension statutes must be liberally construed in favor of the rights of the pensioner. Matsuda v. Cook County Employees\u2019 & Officers\u2019 Annuity & Benefit Fund, 178 Ill. 2d 360, 365-66, 687 N.E.2d 866 (1997).\nThe underlying purpose of a pension forfeiture statute is to discourage official malfeasance by causing a forfeiture of benefits to which a public official otherwise would be entitled. See Kerner v. State Employees\u2019 Retirement System, 72 Ill. 2d 507, 513, 382 N.E.2d 243 (1978) (interpreting section 14 \u2014 199 of the Illinois Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. IO8V2, par. 14 \u2014 199)). The rationale is to deter public officials from committing a breach of the public trust so that the public officials and their beneficiaries do not profit from their wrongdoing. DiFiore v. Retirement Board of the Policemen\u2019s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 313 Ill. App. 3d 546, 551, 729 N.E.2d 878 (2000) (interpreting 40 ILCS 5/5 \u2014 227 (West 1994)). There should be a nexus between the wrongful conduct and the receipt of the benefits; in the absence of the nexus, denying plaintiff his benefits would not further the legislative intent. See DiFiore, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 551.\nWhile the felony-conviction statute refers to \u201cany person,\u201d section 8 \u2014 152 does not exclude widows with these types of felony convictions. Reading the statutes together, and construing them liberally, we conclude that section 8 \u2014 152 is more specific on the issue of widow eligibility. The intent of section 8 \u2014 251\u2019s \u201cany person\u201d must be to refer to the employee who is receiving an annuity \u2014 and not a widow or widower. There was no nexus between plaintiffs wrongdoing and the receipt of the widow\u2019s annuity benefit. Allowing plaintiff to receive a widow\u2019s annuity does not thwart the intent to deter malfeasance because plaintiff did not obtain the benefit of the widow\u2019s annuity by virtue of her wrongdoing.\nThe trial court erred in denying plaintiff her widow\u2019s annuity. On remand, it should enter an order directing defendants to pay plaintiff her annuity.\nPlaintiff also argues that the Fund should have been required to answer her interrogatory that asked whether a widow would receive her widow\u2019s benefit if her spouse was convicted of a felony relating to his municipal employment. We do not reach this argument.\nThe judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded with directions.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nHALL, EJ., and BURKE, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE CERDA" } ], "attorneys": [ "Lonny Ben Ogus, of Chicago, for appellant.", "Frederick E Heiss and William A. Marovitz, both of Chicago, for appel-lees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "JEAN CIRIGNANI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THE MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES\u2019, OFFICERS\u2019, AND OFFICIALS\u2019 ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nFirst District (3rd Division)\nNo. 1-00-1751\nOpinion filed November 22, 2000.\nRehearing denied December 22, 2000.\nLonny Ben Ogus, of Chicago, for appellant.\nFrederick E Heiss and William A. Marovitz, both of Chicago, for appel-lees." }, "file_name": "0732-01", "first_page_order": 752, "last_page_order": 756 }