Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd v. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois, 43 N.E.3d 963

Burke Engineering contracted with Glen Harkins (while Carol Schenck still owned the land) to survey and prepare a subdivision plat and related engineering work to enable development; some work began before closing and continued after.
Burke Engineering recorded a final plat, conducted wetlands survey, and planned roads/utilities; one house was built; Burke invoiced $109,549.69 and was unpaid when work stopped in Feb. 2009.
Burke recorded a mechanics lien and sued to foreclose; Heritage Bank held a mortgage on the property and moved for summary judgment asserting the lien was invalid under section 1 of the Mechanics Lien Act.
The trial court held the services were not an "improvement" and that the owner had not induced or knowingly permitted the contract; the appellate court affirmed; Burke appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether professional engineering/surveying services that enable development constitute a lienable "improvement" under 770 ILCS 60/1, and (2) whether Schenck "knowingly permitted" Harkins to contract while she owned the property, which would make the lien senior to Heritage Bank.

Issue	Burke Engineering's Argument	Heritage Bank's Argument	Held
Whether Burke's surveying/platting/engineering services qualify as an "improvement" under §1(b) of the Mechanics Lien Act	Services were performed "for the purpose of improving" the land (platting, surveying, planning for roads/utilities) and are lienable even if no physical construction was completed	Professionals are lienable only if services relate to physical acts like raising/lowering/removing houses (argues comma/phrase limits scope)	Held: Services performed for the purpose of improving property are lienable; statute is not limited to house-raising/removal and a subdivision plat is done for the purpose of building/improving the land.
Whether the owner (Schenck) "knowingly permitted" Harkins to contract so that the lien attached while she was owner	Owner's knowing permission can be shown by more than receipt of benefit; facts are disputed as to Schenck's knowledge and opportunity to object	Schenck did not authorize, accept benefit, or induce the work; she lacked knowledge of contract details and did not consent	Held: Material factual issues exist about whether Schenck knowingly permitted Harkins to contract; summary judgment for Heritage Bank was inappropriate; remand to resolve those facts.

Freeman v. Rinaker, 185 Ill. 172 (1900) (architect entitled to lien for plans though construction never began)
Crowen v. Meyer, 342 Ill. 46 (1930) (services rendered for purpose of improving property support lien even absent actual construction)
LaSalle Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Cypress Creek 1, LP, 242 Ill. 2d 231 (2011) (statutory interpretation principles; Mechanics Lien Act protective purpose)
Mostardi-Platt Assocs., Inc. v. Czerniejewski, 399 Ill. App. 3d 1205 (2010) (surveying done merely to decide whether to buy was not for purpose of improving land)
Contract Development Corp. v. Beck, 255 Ill. App. 3d 660 (1994) (declining to deny lien where owner’s breach left contractor uncompensated)