Christopher B. Burke Engineering Ltd. v. Harkins

This case presents question as to whether trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment in action by plaintiff-engineering firm to enforce its mechanic’s lien for certain engineering work performed for defendants on real estate. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, noted that subject property remained untouched following completion of plaintiff’s services and found that plaintiff could not enforce its lien under Mechanic’s Lien Act since it had failed to show that its work had improved subject property, where plaintiff’s work merely allowed plaintiffs to record final plat of subject property. (Dissent filed.)