Court Upheld Construction Lien Judgment in Michigan
A Michigan court denied a motion to reconsider a $2.06 million construction lien judgment against property developers.
Updated on Sept. 30, 2026 in Construction
Live Poll
Do you believe construction lien disputes should focus on the contract as a whole?
A Michigan court has denied a motion for reconsideration filed by defendants in a construction lien case. The court maintained a final judgment awarding the plaintiff $2,062,462.38.
Why it matters
The ruling clarifies that the Michigan Construction Lien Act does not limit attorney fee recovery based on the number of active liens at the time of judgment. This decision reinforces the rights of prevailing lien claimants under standard construction contracts.
The court awarded a total judgment of $2,062,462.38 to the plaintiff after reviewing contracts involving four separate condominium units. The plaintiff had previously discharged liens against two of those units during the litigation process.
The players
Michigan Construction Lien Act
This is the state legislation that governs the process for filing and enforcing construction liens in Michigan.
The details
Defendants had argued that attorney fee recovery should be restricted to the owners of the two remaining liened units, but the court rejected this interpretation. The judge ruled that the plaintiff prevailed in the enforcement of its lien rights across all original construction contracts.
Timeline
July 10, 2026: The court entered the opinion and order on final judgment.
July 31, 2026: Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration.
September 29, 2026: The court officially denied the motion for reconsideration.
Market Landscape
This judicial ruling interprets the Michigan Construction Lien Act, providing clarity on how attorney fees are distributed in complex multi-unit construction disputes. It follows a pattern of courts affirming that contract-based lien rights remain robust even after partial discharges.
This ruling establishes a clear precedent for developers and contractors regarding the enforcement of payment claims on multi-unit projects. Property owners and builders should anticipate that prevailing parties in similar disputes will likely be entitled to full attorney fee recovery regardless of lien status.
The takeaway
Property owners should be aware that discharging individual liens during a dispute does not necessarily insulate them from broader liability for attorney fees. Contracts in Michigan are subject to strict lien enforcement standards that prioritize the rights of the prevailing claimant.
Further reading
For more information on legal developments in the state, visit the Construction section.
Source note: This article includes information reported by Michigan Lawyers Weekly.
Live Poll
Do you believe construction lien disputes should focus on the contract as a whole?
