Illinois Compiled Statutes
770 ILCS 60/28 (2026)
Suits by laborers, materialmen or sub-contractors
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(770 ILCS 60/28)
(from Ch. 82, par. 28)
Sec. 28. Suits by laborers, materialmen or sub-contractors.
If any money due to the laborers, materialmen, or sub-contractors
be not paid within 10 days after his notice is served as provided in
Sections 5, 24, and 25, then such person may file a claim for
lien or file a complaint and enforce such lien within the same limits as to
time and in such other manner as hereinbefore provided for the contractor
in Section 7 and Sections 9 to 20 inclusive, of this Act, or he may sue
the owner and contractor jointly for the amount due in the circuit court,
and a personal judgment may
be rendered therein, as in other cases. In such actions, as in suits
to enforce the lien, the owner shall be liable to the plaintiff for no more
than the pro rata share that such person would be entitled to with other
sub-contractors out of the funds due to the contractor from the owner or one knowingly permitted by the owner to contract for such improvements and the contractor, except as hereinbefore provided for laborers and
materialmen, and such action shall be maintained against the owner
only in case the plaintiff establishes a right to the lien. All suits and
actions by sub-contractors shall be against both contractor and owner
jointly, and no judgment shall be rendered therein until both are
duly brought before the court by process or publication, and
such process may be served and publication made as to all persons except
the owners as in other civil actions. All such judgments, where the lien is
established shall be against both jointly, but shall be enforced against
the owner only to the extent that he is liable under his contract as by
this Act provided, and shall recite the date from which the lien thereof
attached according to the provisions of Sections 1 to 20 of this Act; but
this shall not preclude a judgment against the contractor, personally,
where the lien is defeated.
(Source: P.A. 94-627, eff. 1-1-06.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1995–2021 · leading case: Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Constr. Sys., Inc., 887 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Cordeck Sales, Inc. v. Constr. Sys., Inc., 887 N.E.2d 474 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). “As an alternative argument, First Midwest maintains that even if ALL’s section 24 notice was timely, ALL nonetheless still failed to perfect its lien claim because it recorded and provided notice of its claim on the same date and thus failed to abide by the timing requirements…”
Premier Elec. Constr. Co. v. Am. Nat'l Bank, 658 N.E.2d 877 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “Premier’s amended complaint included the following claims: (1) count I was a claim to foreclose its mechanic’s lien under section 28 of the Mechanics Lien Act (Act) (770 ILCS 60/28 (West 1992)); (2) count II was a claim on the Bond against Federal as surety; (3) count III was a…”
A.E.I. Music Network, Inc. v. Bus. Computers, Inc., 290 F.3d 952 (7th Cir. 2002). “Out $159,000, it brought this suit, charging that the statutory requirement *954 of a bond was an implied-by-law term of the contract between the Board and BCI that it can enforce as a third-party beneficiary, and also seeking to impress a mechanic’s lien, 770 ILCS 60/28; R.W.…”
Nw. Millwork Co. v. Komperda, 788 N.E.2d 399 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “It sought to foreclose on its mechanic's lien, damages for breach of contract, and damages under section 28 of the Mechanics Lien Act (Act) (770 ILCS 60/28 (West 2000)). The contract claim was directed against Andrew Lipowski only, and the remaining claims were directed against…”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. George Hyman Constr. Co., 715 N.E.2d 749 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “Concept, Economy, Levy, and Moran brought separate actions to hold Clark and State Farm jointly liable under section 28 of the Lien Act (770 ILCS 60/28 (West 1994)). Concept, Economy, and Gibson sought recovery under a quantum meruit theory for materials- and supplies they had…”
Merchants Env't Indus., Inc. v. SLT Realty Ltd. P'ship, 731 N.E.2d 394 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000). “” Alternatively, in count II, designated “Action Against Owner and Contractor Jointly Pursuant to 770 ILCS 60/28,” MEI seeks judgment jointly and severally against SLT and Gold for $219,317.”
Petroline Co. v. Advanced Env't Contractors, Inc., 711 N.E.2d 1146 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “770 ILCS 60/28 (West 1996). Under the “relation back doctrine,” a subcontractor’s lien complying with the provisions of the Act is considered to have attached as of the date of the contract between the contractor and the owner.”
Onsite Eng'g & Mgmt., Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 744 N.E.2d 928 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). “Count IV was an action to obtain a judgment in the amount of $46,984 against QST, as general contractor, and ITW and 3635 Touhy, as owners of the property, pursuant to section 28 of the Mechanics Lien Act (770 ILCS 60/28 (West 1996)). On August 3, 1999, ITW and 3635 Touhy filed…”
Raymond Prof'l Grp., Inc. v. William A. Pope Co. (In Re Raymond Prof'l Grp., Inc.), 408 B.R. 711 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009). “Here, AES and RMS settled and released their respective claims against the owner AES under the EPC Contract for $2.5 million. Therefore, if Raymond were due any debt relating to its lien and trust claim for work performed, Pope would have to share the Current Account in…”
Brown & Kerr, Inc. v. Am. Stores Props., Inc., 715 N.E.2d 804 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “In count I, B&K requested judgment pursuant to section 28 of the Mechanics Lien Act (770 ILCS 60/28 (West 1996)) against American and Trapani and an award of interest, attorney fees, and expenses.”
Chicago Whirly, Inc. v. Amp Rite Elec. Co., Inc., 710 N.E.2d 45 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 770 ILCS 60/28 (West 1996). In finding that the statute of limitations was extended, the Garbe court relied on section 108(c) of the Bankruptcy Act, which provides: “[I]f applicable nonbankruptcy law *** fixes a period for commencing or continuing a civil action in a court…”
O'Connor Constr. Co. v. Belmont Harbor Home Dev., LLC, 909 N.E.2d 294 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “ANALYSIS As a preliminary matter, we note that under the Act a subcontractor may elect to enforce its rights for breach of contract through the simultaneous use of several remedies, including an action at law for breach of contract against the general contractor and the owners…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|