Background
225 West Randolph Owner, LLC hired Onni Contracting (Chicago), Inc. to renovate a 33-story building in downtown Chicago. Onni retained The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Inc. to provide architectural design services but later engaged another firm after the parties’ relationship deteriorated. LJC recorded a mechanics lien and filed an enforcement action on August 23, 2023.
Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing in part that LJC had not completed contractually required prelitigation mediation. On February 21, 2024, while that motion remained pending, defendants petitioned under section 38.1 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act to substitute a surety bond for the property. The circuit court later dismissed LJC’s complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend, stayed the action for mediation, and denied the petition. After mediation failed, LJC filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2024. Defendants filed another bond-substitution petition on December 30, 2024, which the circuit court denied for reasons stated at an untranscribed hearing.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court held that section 38.1(c)’s five-month deadline begins when the lien claimant files the earliest complaint or counterclaim asserting the mechanics lien. An amended pleading asserting the same lien does not restart the period. The statute requires interested parties to decide whether to bond over a lien early in the litigation, and treating every amendment as starting a new period would undermine that purpose.
The dismissal of LJC’s original complaint with leave to amend did not create a new five-month period because the action itself remained pending, even though no complaint was temporarily on file. The court also rejected the contention that the clock begins only upon the filing of a “viable” complaint, reasoning that the statute contains no such requirement. Because LJC first asserted its lien on August 23, 2023, the deadline was January 23, 2024. The December 30, 2024 petition was therefore untimely, and the appellate court affirmed its denial.
Key Takeaways
- The five-month period under section 38.1(c) runs from the earliest pleading asserting the mechanics lien.
- Dismissal of a complaint with leave to amend does not restart the deadline when the underlying action remains pending.
- An amended complaint asserting the same lien does not create a new opportunity to substitute a surety bond.
Why It Matters
Property owners and other interested parties cannot rely on amended pleadings or a dismissal with leave to amend to extend the statutory period for bonding over a mechanics lien. Once a lien-enforcement pleading is filed, they must act within five months.
The decision also distinguishes a pending action from the pleading that initiates or continues it, limiting the holding to the procedural setting in which a complaint was dismissed with leave to amend and an amended complaint followed.