In Peter J. Hartmann Co. v. Capitol Bank & Trust Co., 353 Ill. App. 3d 700, 817 N.E.2d 913, 288 Ill. Dec. 263 (2004), the notice and multiple lien claims were for $ 279,824 despite the amount relating to work performed totaled $ 9,700. Hartmann, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 703-04, 817 N.E.2d at 917. The Hartmann court undertook an analysis of the cases cited by Oakwood and Southeast, which included Lohmann; Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. Zedd Investments, Inc., 276 Ill. App. 3d 998, 658 N.E.2d 849, 213 Ill. Dec. 100 (1995); Fedco Electric Co. v. Stunkel, 77 Ill. App. 3d 48, 395 N.E.2d 1116, 32 Ill. Dec. 735 (1979); and Marsh v. Mick, 159 Ill. App. 399 (1911), concluding that those cases were distinguishable because "the intent to defraud was shown by executed documents which on their face overstated the amount due in combination with some other evidence of record from which intent could be inferred." Hartmann, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 708, 817 N.E.2d at 920. After analyzing the relevant case law, the Court in Hartmann held that the trial court "erred in finding that Hartmann's recording and registering of multiple notice and claim for lien documents constituted constructive fraud, rendering the mechanics lien unenforceable." Hartmann, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 710, 817 N.E.2d at 921. The Hartman court also held that there was "no document that on its face overstates the amount due and no evidence of intent to defraud." Hartmann, 353 Ill. App. 3d at 708, 817 N.E.2d at 921.