The moving party, an owner/contractor on a construction project, brought a motion under section 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action against it.
The plaintiff's construction lien had previously been vacated by the posting of security by the general contractor.
The court held that once a lien is vacated by the posting of security, the owner is no longer a proper party to the lien action as there is no privity of contract.
Furthermore, the court applied binding appellate authority to hold that claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit cannot be joined in a lien action under section 55(1) of the Act.
The motion was granted and the action against the moving party was dismissed.