Is The Legislative Reaction to Cypress Creek a Fix in Support of Lien Claimants?
Interior of a Transperth B-series train at Clarkson, Western Australia. :Mitchell JohnsonThe much anticipated legislative fix for the LaSalle Bank c. Cypress Creek 1 case has stalled in the State Senate. House Bill 3636 seeks to change the language of Section 16 of the Illinois Mechanics Lien Act to deal with the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision that puts properly secured construction lenders on equal footing with lien claimants during the apportionment of sale proceeds following a foreclosure.
The Illinois House of Representatives passed the bill on April 14. The version passed by the House took away the equal footing put in place by Cypress Creek and added language to Section 16 stating that lenders “shall not be preferred to the value of any subsequent improvements” and gave the lien claimants preference as to the value of “all” improvements placed on the property during construction “whether or not” they were provided by the lien claimant.
If you followed the decisions, the House bill basically enacts the method of apportionment and damage calculation that the Illinois Third District Appellate Court had awarded in the opinion that was appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
After the House passed the bill, it went to the Senate where it was amended with the following language:
“When the proceeds of a sale are insufficient to satisfy the claims of both previous incumbrancers and lien creditors, the proceeds of the sale shall be distributed as follows: (i) any previous incumbrancers shall have a paramount lien in the portion of the proceeds attributable to the value of the land before any improvements;and (ii) any lien creditors shall have a paramount lien in the portion of the proceeds attributable to the value of all subsequent improvements made to the property.”
This amendment is a little tricky. It keeps the distinction of the House bill, but appears to go on to say that courts should first award from the sale proceeds the full amount of the lenders payment for the land, and then, after that award, give the remaining proceeds to lien claimants. I
It’s the use of the word “paramount” that’s confusing. A quick search of the Illinois statutes shows that the word is most often used in the preamble of acts to discuss the purpose and importance of the act.
When it is used in the statutory language with purpose, “paramount” is used to establish or express a priority of right:
Garners Modern American Usage defines paramount as “superior to all others” or “most important”.
If the added words of the Senate bill don’t change the method of distribution and award amounts established by the House bill, then they shouldn’t be added. As it reads, the Senate bill would do away with the method for calculating monetary awards of foreclosure proceeds established in both the Appellate and Supreme Court Cypress Creek cases and appears to award the proceeds of a sale in the amount of the full amount of the land value first to the lender and then would take whatever remains from the sale proceeds and give it to the mechanic’s lien claimants… if not, why add “paramount”?
The bill appears to have stalled in the Senate for now. But anyone concerned about the changing rights of contractors and lenders should keep an eye its progress.
Don Lee |
Post a Comment | |
Email Article |
Print Article | tagged
Damages,
Illinois,
Mechanics Liens,
Real Estate,
Statutes
June 22, 2011 

