Court Upheld Construction Lien Judgment in Michigan
Michigan contractors face clearer rules on attorney fee recovery following a recent court decision.
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 denied a motion for reconsideration, effectively upholding a $2,062,462.38 judgment involving construction lien enforcement. The ruling clarified that attorney fees for prevailing lien claimants are not limited by the number of active liens at the time of final judgment.
Why it matters
This decision removes uncertainty for contractors regarding their ability to recover legal costs in multi-unit projects even if some liens are discharged during litigation. It reinforces that prevailing in a lien enforcement action provides broader financial protection than defendants previously argued.
The court upheld a total judgment of $2,062,462.38 across four original condominium unit contracts. The ruling confirms that attorney fee recovery under the Michigan Construction Lien Act is not indexed to the number of liens remaining at the time of final adjudication.
The players
Michigan Construction Lien Act
The state statutory framework governing the rights of contractors to secure payment through liens on real property.
The details
The court rejected the defendants' argument that attorney fees should be restricted only to the owners of the two condominium units still under lien at the time of judgment. By interpreting the Michigan Construction Lien Act, the court established that a contractor's status as a prevailing party in a lien enforcement action entitles them to broader fee recovery. This decision forces a closer look at contractual structures for multi-unit developments and how lien discharge affects legal cost recovery.
Timeline
July 10, 2026: The court entered the opinion and order regarding the final judgment.
July 31, 2026: The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of the judgment.
September 29, 2026: The court officially denied the motion for reconsideration.
Market Landscape
This decision clarifies the application of the Michigan Construction Lien Act in multi-unit project disputes. It departs from defense interpretations that sought to link fee recovery limitations directly to the volume of active liens held at the point of final judgment.
Contractors and developers operating in Michigan should review their multi-unit contract language regarding potential fee shifting and lien enforcement costs. Consult with qualified legal counsel to understand how this ruling impacts your current exposure in ongoing litigation or contract drafting.
The takeaway
The court's interpretation confirms that prevailing contractors can secure broader attorney fee recovery than previously asserted by defense teams. Ensure your legal counsel audits current lien-enforcement strategies to align with this standard regarding multi-unit contracts.
Further reading
For more insight into legal challenges in the sector, visit Construction.
Live Poll
Do you believe construction lien disputes should focus on the contract as a whole?
