This motion concerned the proper preservation of construction liens, specifically whether the lien claimants' rights were governed by the "old" 45-day period under the Construction Lien Act or the "new" 60-day period under the Construction Act.
The determination hinged on the interpretation of the Act's transition provisions, which apply if a contract for improvement or a procurement process was commenced by the owner before July 1, 2018.
The court analyzed whether certain corporate entities, which had early involvement in the project but did not hold legal title to the premises before the critical date, qualified as "owners" under the Act.
Applying corporate law principles, the court found that these entities, despite their interest in the project, did not possess a lienable interest in the land and thus were not "owners" for the purpose of triggering the old Act's transition rules.
Consequently, the new 60-day preservation period applied, and the liens were found to be properly preserved.
The non-party contractor's motion for a declaration that the liens had expired was dismissed.