Gerdau Ameristeel United States, Inc. v. Broeren Russo Constr., Inc.
| Decision Date | 18 March 2015 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-14-0385,4-14-0385 |
| Citation | 2015 IL App (4th) 140385 -U |
| Parties | GERDAU AMERISTEEL US, INC., Plaintiff, and AHAL CONTRACTING CO., INC., and BLAGER CONCRETE COMPANY, Plaintiffs-Appellees and Cross-Appellants, v. BROEREN RUSSO CONSTRUCTION, INC., and CAMPUS INVESTORS 309, LLC, Defendants-Appellants and Cross-Appellees, and JACOBSMEYER-MAULDIN CONSTRUCTION COMPANY; ROLAND REALTY, INC.; BROEREN RUSSO CONSTRUCTION, INC.; CAMPUS INVESTORS 309, LLC; RBS CITIZENS, N.A.; CHARTER ONE, a Division of RBS CITIZENS, N.A.; KLG CORPORATION; PENHALL COMPANY; AHAL CONTRACTING CO., INC.; BLAGER CONCRETE COMPANY; UNKNOWN OWNERS; and NONRECORD CLAIMANTS, Defendants. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Champaign County
Honorable Charles McRae Leonhard, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions, finding the trial court erred in granting interest under the Code of Civil Procedure instead of the Mechanics Lien Act.
¶ 2 In March 2009, plaintiff, Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc. (Gerdau), filed a verifiedcomplaint for foreclosure of its mechanics lien and other relief against defendants, Jacobsmeyer-Mauldin Construction Company (JMC); Roland Realty, Inc.; Broeren Russo Construction, Inc. (Broeren Russo); Campus Investors 309, LLC (Campus); RBS Citizens, N.A., and Charter One, a Division of RBS Citizens, N.A.; KLG Corporation; Penhall Company; Ahal Contracting Co., Inc. (Ahal); Blager Concrete Company (Blager); and unknown owners and nonrecord claimants. Blager and Ahal later sought to enforce liens under the Mechanics Lien Act (Act) (770 ILCS 60/0.01 to 39 (West 2008)).
¶ 3 In April 2012, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Ahal and against Campus and Broeren Russo in the amount of $412,328.26. The court entered judgment in favor of Blager and against Campus and Broeren Russo in the amount of $215,144.24.
¶ 4 In the appeal of Campus and Broeren Russo, this court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded with directions, finding Ahal and Blager were entitled to the pro rata shares of the $495,850 owed to their immediate contractor less any pro rata portion paid to Gerdau. The cross-appeals filed by Ahal and Blager were deemed moot.
¶ 5 In December 2013, Campus and Broeren Russo filed a motion for declaratory judgment, seeking a declaration that no interest was due on the pro rata shares. In May 2014, the trial court found Ahal and Blager were entitled to postjudgment interest under section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1303 (West 2012)).
¶ 6 In the appeal of Campus and Broeren Russo, they argue the trial court erred in awarding interest to Ahal and Blager under the Code. In their cross-appeals, Ahal and Blager argue the trial court erred in denying them postjudgment interest under the Act.
¶ 8 The parties are well aware of the factual history in this mechanics lien case, asevidenced by our prior opinion. See Gerdau Ameristeel US, Inc. v. Broeren Russo Construction, Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120547, 992 N.E.2d 27. Thus, we need only set forth the facts necessary for consideration of the issues currently before us.
¶ 9 Campus is the owner of the subject property located in Champaign. Broeren Russo is a general contractor. JMC is a subcontractor, and Ahal and Blager are secondary subcontractors. Gerdau is a material supplier.
¶ 10 In January 2010, Blager filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1005 (West 2010)). In September 2010, Ahal filed a section 2-1005 motion for summary judgment. In June 2011, the trial court denied the motions.
¶ 11 In October 2011, Campus and Broeren Russo filed a section 2-1005 motion for summary judgment. Campus and Broeren Russo indicated they had settled with JMC and entered into a mutual release. The sole consideration was the dismissal of the claims against each other and the release of JMC's recorded lien. Campus and Broeren Russo argued Ahal and Blager were limited to their pro rata share of any settlement by the owner with JMC. Because JMC settled with Campus and Broeren Russo for the payment of no additional dollars, no additional money existed to which Ahal's or Blager's liens could attach. The motion stated the sole remedy was for Ahal and Blager to pursue contract claims against JMC. The trial court allowed Ahal and Blager to renew their prior motions for summary judgment.
¶ 12 In December 2011, the trial court granted the summary judgment motions filed by Ahal and Blager. In April 2012, the court entered a judgment of foreclosure and sale. The court entered judgment in favor of Ahal and against Campus and Broeren Russo in the amount of $412,328.26. The court entered judgment in favor of Blager and against Campus and Broeren Russo in the amount of $215,144.24. The court also found Ahal and Blager had liens on theproperty for the amounts due. The court denied Ahal's and Blager's petitions for attorney fees and costs.
¶ 13 On appeal, Campus and Broeren Russo argued the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Ahal and Blager without limiting Ahal's and Blager's recovery to only their pro rata share of the amount of unpaid contract funds remaining at the time they served their notices of lien. This court agreed, reversing the judgment and remanding "for the entry of an order granting Ahal and Blager their pro rata shares of the $495,850 owed to their immediate contractor less any pro rata portion paid to Gerdau." Gerdau, 2013 IL App (4th) 120547, ¶ 76, 992 N.E.2d 27. In the cross-appeals of Ahal and Blager, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in denying their petitions for attorney fees and not including deposition costs, we found the issues moot. Gerdau, 2013 IL App (4th) 120547, ¶ 80, 992 N.E.2d 27.
¶ 14 Ahal and Blager filed a petition for rehearing, which this court denied in July 2013. Thereafter, Ahal and Blager filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which the court denied in September 2013. This court issued the mandate on November 5, 2013.
¶ 15 In December 2013, Campus and Broeren Russo filed a motion for declaratory judgment pursuant to section 2-701 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-701 (West 2012)). They noted Ahal and Blager were demanding 10% interest under the Act or 9% under the Code, but the motion asked the trial court for an order declaring Campus and Broeren Russo owed no interest under any statute.
¶ 16 In February 2014, the trial court conducted a hearing on the motion for declaratory judgment. Following arguments, the court held Ahal and Blager were not entitled to 10% interest under section 1(a) of the Act (770 ILCS 60/1(a) (West 2012)). The court also foundthe claim for "regular judgment interest" under section 2-1303 of the Code (735 ILCS 5/2-1303 (West 2012)) had been forfeited. The following day, the court sua sponte modified its order to include an award of statutory judgment interest under section 2-1303.
¶ 17 In April 2014, Campus and Broeren Russo filed a motion for aid and direction, seeking clarification of the trial court's order as to the date the judgment interest should begin accruing. In May 2014, the court issued its written ruling. The court noted the pro rata portion of the unpaid contract funds due to Ahal amounted to $135,229.38 and due to Blager amounted to $69,597.75. The court found Ahal and Blager were entitled to postjudgment interest on their pro rata shares, pursuant to section 2-1303 of the Code, accrued since December 14, 2011, the date of the original judgment entered in favor of Ahal and Blager. This appeal and these cross-appeals followed.
¶ 20 Before arguing the merits of the trial court's decision to award interest in this case, Campus and Broeren Russo claim this court expressly refused to award interest in our prior reversal and in the denial of rehearing, such that the trial court was without authority to award interest on remand. We disagree.
¶ 21 In the prior appeal, this court concluded our opinion as follows:
Gerdau, 2013 IL App (4th) 120547, ¶ 82, 992 N.E.2d 27.
¶ 22 Thereafter, Ahal and Blager filed a joint petition for rehearing, arguing this court "overlooked and misapprehended" the law on multiple issues. Ahal and Blager also argued clarification was necessary on the issue of interest and costs due them under the Act. Ahal and Blager pointed out Campus and Broeren Russo asserted no interest or costs were due. Ahal and Blager requested this court grant the petition for rehearing or, in the alternative, indicate the remand should provide for a determination of the pro rata share and the interest due under the Act.
¶ 23 This court denied the petition for rehearing. Ahal and Blager filed a petition for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, which the court denied in September 2013. In November 2013, this court issued the mandate, reversing and remanding with directions to the trial court "for such other proceedings as required by the order of this court."
¶ 24 Campus and Broeren Russo argue this court's directions on remand must be followed exactly, thereby prohibiting an award of interest in this case. Moreover, Campus and Broeren Russo argue the denial of the petition for rehearing constituted a...
To continue reading
Request your trial