2014 IL App (1st) 130730
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Cityline (contractor) and Roberts/Gherold (Owners) made an oral agreement (April 2009) for post-fire restoration; Cityline finished work by December 15, 2010.
- Cityline recorded a mechanic’s lien (Feb 24, 2011) claiming $397,302 and sued to foreclose; Owners counterclaimed seeking a declaration the lien was void.
- During discovery Owners requested a sworn contractor’s statement (listing subcontractors and amounts); Cityline admitted it never provided one.
- Cityline produced an affidavit from its VP asserting all subcontractors were paid but did not list names or amounts as required by the Mechanics’ Lien Act §5.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment for the Owners voiding the lien; Cityline appealed. Counts for breach of contract and quantum meruit remain pending.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to provide a sworn contractor’s statement (770 ILCS 60/5) when requested voids a mechanic’s lien | Cityline: strict compliance should be excused where no prejudice and subcontractors paid; affidavit suffices | Owners: statute requires strict, literal compliance; failure to provide sworn names/amounts voids lien | The court held the lien is void; strict compliance with §5 is required and cannot be excused by equitable considerations |
| Whether affidavit that subcontractors were paid satisfies §5 | Cityline: VP affidavit shows purpose served; no prejudice | Owners: affidavit lacks required names/amounts and is not the sworn contractor’s statement §5 requires | Held: affidavit insufficient; it did not list subcontractors or amounts and thus failed §5 |
| Whether First District precedent allows excusing §5 noncompliance | Cityline relied on National Wrecking to argue noncompliance can be excused | Owners: National Wrecking inapplicable; its holding concerned contract recovery, not lien validity | Held: National Wrecking dicta not controlling; §5 governs lien validity and must be strictly followed |
| Whether equitable considerations (e.g., subcontractors paid) can cure §5 defects | Cityline: equity should prevent loss on technicality | Owners: creation of mechanic’s lien is statutory; equity cannot alter statutory prerequisites | Held: Equity cannot override the Act; strict statutory compliance required |
Key Cases Cited
- Deerfield Electric Co. v. Herbert W. Jaeger & Associates, Inc., 74 Ill. App. 3d 380 (appellate court) (contractor’s failure to provide sworn statement when requested invalidated mechanic’s lien)
- Weydert Homes, Inc. v. Kammes, 395 Ill. App. 3d 512 (appellate court) (failure to comply with §5 oath/verification requirement invalidates lien; court refused to read exceptions based on timing or notice)
- Westcon/Dillingham Microtunneling v. Walsh Constr. Co. of Ill., 319 Ill. App. 3d 870 (appellate court) (rights under Mechanics’ Lien Act are statutory and must be strictly construed)
- National Wrecking Co. v. Midwest Terminal Corp., 234 Ill. App. 3d 750 (appellate court) (discussed distinction between breach of contract recovery and mechanic’s lien validity; dicta that failure to provide sworn statement does not bar lien is not controlling)