Background
225 West Randolph Owner, LLC hired Onni Contracting (Chicago), Inc. to renovate a downtown Chicago building. Onni retained The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Inc. (LJC) for architectural-design services, but later replaced LJC with another firm.
LJC recorded a mechanic’s lien and sued on August 23, 2023, to enforce it. After LJC’s original complaint was dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend and the case was stayed for mediation, LJC filed an amended complaint on August 2, 2024. The defendants then petitioned on December 30, 2024, to substitute a surety bond for the lien. The circuit court denied the petition as untimely.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed. Under section 38.1(c) of the Mechanics Lien Act, once an action to enforce a lien is pending, a petition to substitute a bond must be filed within five months of the first complaint or counterclaim in which the mechanic’s lien claim is raised.
The five-month period began when LJC filed its original complaint on August 23, 2023, and expired on January 23, 2024. Dismissal of that complaint without prejudice and with leave to amend did not end the pending action or restart the deadline when LJC filed its amended complaint. The court limited its ruling to that procedural context.
Key Takeaways
- A bond-substitution petition under section 38.1(c) is due within five months of the earliest pleading asserting the lien claim.
- An amended complaint asserting the same lien does not create a new five-month bonding period.
- Dismissing a complaint without prejudice while granting leave to amend does not necessarily terminate the pending action.
Why It Matters
Property owners and other interested parties must decide promptly whether to bond over a mechanic’s lien once lien-enforcement litigation begins. They cannot rely on later pleading amendments to revive an expired statutory deadline.