On November 19, 2015, the Illinois Supreme Court held in Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. v. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois that engineers and design professionals can enforce liens for their work under the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act where little or no actual construction has taken place, so long as the services performed were done for the purpose of improving the property (2015 IL 118955 (November 19, 2015)).

In April 2008, Burke Engineering, Ltd. was hired by Glen Harkins to survey a tract of land. By February 2009, Burke had recorded the final plat, conducted a wetlands survey and provided services for planning roads, utilities and sewers. Burke invoiced Harkins for $109,549.69. After receiving no payment, Burke recorded a mechanic’s lien on the property and filed suit to foreclose the lien against Harkins and Heritage Bank (which held a mortgage interest in the property).

Heritage Bank filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the lien did not meet the definition of “improvement” under the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act and the owner had not induced or encouraged the work. The circuit court held that the lien was invalid and granted summary judgment in favor of Heritage Bank. The appellate court affirmed and Burke petitioned for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The supreme court reversed the lower courts’ holding because they ignored the fact that the statute provides a lien if a professional’s services result in an improvement to the property or if the services are completed for the purpose of improving the property (770 ILCS 60/1(a)). The services performed by Burke were done for the purpose of improving the property, namely for a development of homes on the property.

The court rejected Heritage Bank’s arguments that a physical improvement is required and that architects and engineers may obtain a lien under the Mechanics Lien Act only if their services relate to the raising, lowering or removing a house on the property. The court held that requiring a physical improvement in order to secure a lien would subject design professionals to the whims of the parties they contract with, who may decide not to complete the project. The court also held that to limit application of the Mechanics Lien Act to services that raise, lower or remove a house is illogical because many of the professionals listed in the Act (such as architects, structural engineers, land surveyors and property managers) do not participate in those functions. To interpret the Act this way would render the inclusion of those professionals superfluous.

The court remanded the case to the circuit court to determine whether the owner at the time (before Harkins actually closed on the property) permitted Harkins to contract for services regarding the property.

This decision is important because it clarifies the applicability of the Mechanics Lien Act to services performed for the purpose of improving a property, not just for those services that actually result in a physical improvement to the property. The court’s holding gives architects, engineers, land surveyors and property managers assurance that they can enforce liens under the act even where their services resulted in little or no actual physical construction.