A contractor sought to enforce lien and related claims against a land vendor after a hotel purchaser defaulted on payment for servicing work on the parcel to be sold.
The court held the vendor was not an owner within sections 1.1 or 18 of the Construction Lien Act for the impugned work, finding no request, privity, consent, or joint/common ownership status that would ground liability.
Claims in unjust enrichment and quantum meruit were rejected because the deprivation flowed from the purchaser’s contractual breach and no corresponding enrichment by the vendor was established.
The court found the contractor’s proven damages remained those already reflected in judgments against the purchaser.
The action was dismissed with costs, but the contractor was found entitled to a lien against the purchaser’s $25,000 deposit held by the vendor.
