Illinois Compiled Statutes
770 ILCS 60/35 (2026)
Satisfaction or release; recording; neglect; penalty
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(770 ILCS 60/35)
(from Ch. 82, par. 35)
Sec. 35. Satisfaction or release; recording; neglect; penalty.
(a) Whenever a claim for lien has been filed with the recorder of deeds, either by the contractor or sub-contractor,
and is paid with cost of filing same, or where there
is a failure to institute suit to enforce the same after demand as provided
in the preceding Section within the time by this Act limited the person
filing the same or some one by him duly authorized in writing so to do,
shall acknowledge satisfaction or release thereof, in writing, on written
demand of the owner, lienor, or any person interested in the real estate, or his or her agent or attorney, and on neglect to do so for 10 days after such written
demand he or she shall be
liable to the owner for the sum of $2,500, which may be recovered in a civil action together with the costs and the reasonable attorney's fees of the owner, lienor, or other person interested in the real estate, or his or her agent or attorney incurred in bringing such action.
(b) Such a satisfaction or release of lien may be filed with the recorder
of deeds in whose office the claim for lien had been filed
and when so filed shall forever thereafter discharge and release the claim
for lien and shall bar all actions brought or to be brought thereupon.
(c) The release of lien shall have the following
imprinted thereon in bold letters at least 1/4 inch in height: "FOR THE
PROTECTION OF THE OWNER, THIS RELEASE
SHOULD BE FILED WITH THE RECORDER
IN WHOSE OFFICE THE CLAIM FOR LIEN WAS FILED." The Recorder
in whose office the claim for lien had been filed,
upon receipt of a release and the payment of the recording
fee, shall record the release.
(Source: P.A. 99-78, eff. 7-20-15.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Süd Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Otto Baum Co., 2024 IL App (4th) 220782 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
Süd Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Otto Baum Co., 2024 IL App (4th) 220782 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “¶ 18 In March 2021, Süd filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, asserting it had discovered additional causes of action against Otto Baum and ATG that arose under the Mechanics Lien Act (770 ILCS 60/35(a) (West 2020)) “for their failure to release the two…”
Krzyminski v. Dziadkowiec, 695 N.E.2d 1275 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “On March 19,1996, plaintiffs issued a demand on defendant to issue a release of his claim for lien within 10 days pursuant to section 35 of the Act (770 ILCS 60/35 (West 1996)). Defendant refused to issue a release and plaintiffs filed this action on May 22, 1996, for the…”
Krzyminski v. Dziadkowiec (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “On March 19, 1996, plaintiffs issued a demand on defendant to issue a release of his claim for lien within 10 days pursuant to section 35 of the Act (770 ILCS 60/35 (West 1996)). Defendant refused to issue a release and plaintiffs filed this action on May 22, 1996, for the…”
770 ILCS 60/35(a): 1 case
Süd Fam. Ltd. P'ship v. Otto Baum Co., 2024 IL App (4th) 220782 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). “¶ 18 In March 2021, Süd filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint, asserting it had discovered additional causes of action against Otto Baum and ATG that arose under the Mechanics Lien Act (770 ILCS 60/35(a) (West 2020)) “for their failure to release the two…”
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.
|