William Aupperle & Sons, Inc. v. American Nat. Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago

• Decision Date: 20 May 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74--139,74--139
• Citation: 28 Ill.App.3d 573,329 N.E.2d 458
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois
• Parties: WILLIAM AUPPERLE & SONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Page 458

329 N.E.2d 458

28 Ill.App.3d 573

WILLIAM AUPPERLE & SONS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO et al Defendants-Appellants.

No. 74--139.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

May 20, 1975.

Rehearing Denied June 24, 1975.

Bruce R. Becker, Peoria, for defendants-appellants.

Paul J. Johnston, Mathis-Sloan & Littler, Peoria, Wanless Professional Corp., Morton, for plaintiff-appellee.

STENGEL, Justice:

Plaintiff Aupperle, subcontractor for the Royal Oaks Apartment building project in Peoria, Illinois, brought this action to foreclose a mechanics' lien for an unpaid balance of $33,485.54 alleged to be due for labor and materials furnished for the project under a written agreement with Clyde Construction Co., general contractor (hereafter after called 'Clyde'), and also under a subsequent oral agreement with defendant Daniel Comm (developer, architect and agent for the owners) for additional work. Defendants' motion to dismiss the cause on the grounds of lien waivers was allowed, and then vacated on subsequent motion of plaintiff. Affidavits supporting these motions indicated a dispute of fact as to whether the lien waivers were fraudulently procured. Defendants thereafter filed an answer to the complaint denying the oral contract, alleging the lien waivers attached as exhibits as an affirmative defense, and asserting a counterclaim for damages in the amount of $50,000.00 resulting from allegedly defective work performed by plaintiff. Plaintiff's reply to the affirmative defense did not deny the execution and delivery of the lien waivers and abandoned any issue as to fraud, but pleaded in avoidance only that the waivers were intended to be partial for amounts paid and not a release as to the unapid balance. The cause thereafter proceeded to trial before the court which entered a decree of foreclosure for plaintiff for the full amount of the claim and denied defendants' counterclaim. Defendants thereupon perfected this appeal.

The original subcontract between plaintiff and the general contractor was executed on a standard AIA form dated July 17, 1969, for the amount of $32,000.00 with final completion date of Nov. 1, 1969. Plaintiff was required to do certain concrete work for the construction of a complex of four apartment buildings with swimming pool, and the general contractor was to make monthly progress payments upon plaintiff's application accompanied by waiver of mechanics' lien claim. The complaint alleged that, subsequent to the execution of the subcontract with Clyde, plaintiff made an oral contract with Comm for additional work; that plaintiff completed performance of both agreements; that, after credits, an unpaid balance of $33,485.54 became due on November 1, 1970, and remains unpaid; and that plaintiff has a right of lien foreclosure for this amount plus interest from November 1, 1970. The decree allowed interest at 6 per cent.

Defendants contend on appeal that the decree of foreclosure and the order for plaintiff on the counterclaim are against the manifest weight of the evidence, and, as alternative grounds for reversal, assign additional errors. At the trial, evidence concerning the disputed oral contract authorizing additional work was introduced, and the court apparently found that a valid agreement did exist. However, we do not reach the question of the validity of that alleged agreement on this appeal.

The first question is whether the lien waivers were a bar to the right of foreclosure. Plaintiff contends that this court cannot consider that question because defendants did not appeal from the order vacating the dismissal order. The ruling on dismissal was not a final appealable order, and did not decide the validity and effect of the lien waivers, but left to the trial court the determination of whether the waivers were a bar after hearing the cause on the merits. Chicago Housing Auth. v. Abrams, 409 Ill. 226, 99 N.E.2d 129 (1951).

Plaintiff also argues that the lien waivers are not an issue here because defendants introduced no evidence at trial in support of their affirmative defense, and thus are raising the issue for the first time on appeal. We disagree. The lien waivers were attached to defendants' pleadings as an exhibit, and plaintiff did not deny their execution or delivery. Under Section 36 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 110, Sec. 36), a written instrument attached to a pleading as an exhibit constitutes part of the pleading for all purposes and need not be introduced in evidence. Atlee Electric Co., Inc. v. Johnson Constr. Co., 14 Ill.App.3d 716, 303 N.E.2d 192 (1st Dist., 1973). Since plaintiff did not deny execution of the waivers, that allegation was admitted. Ill.Rev.Stat. c. 110, Sec. 35(2) (1973). Defendants' pleadings thus established a prima facie defense, and plaintiff had the burden of proving his plea in avoidance that the waivers were intended to be partial and not full and complete. See J. & R. Elec. Co. v. Allison Co., 125 Ill.App.2d 123, 260 N.E.2d 755 (5th Dist., 1970); Hudson v. Mandabach, 22 Ill.App.2d 296, 160 N.E.2d 715 (1st Dist., 1959).

The first five waivers recite on their face that all lien rights against the Royal Oak Apartments 'on account of labor or materials, or both, furnished or Which may be furnished' by plaintiff are waived. (Emphasis added). The last lien waiver, dated June 15, 1970, recited that plaintiff released 'any and all claims which we have or may have for labor or materials . . . including any and all claims we have or That may after accrue to us under and by virtue of the laws of Illinois relating to mechanics' lien or otherwise; and we hereby certify that there are no outstanding bills for labor or material under Our contract on said building.' (Emphasis added). Plaintiff offered no evidence in support of his allegations and the only testimony concerning the lien waivers was plaintiff's statement, during cross-examination on rebuttal, that he gave a lien waiver and that 'it was 'partial'. This was, at most, a statement of plaintiff's conclusion and was contrary to the language of the documents themselves.

In Burgoyne v. Ryle, 261 Ill.App. 356 (1st Dist., 1931), the court held that if the waiver is ambiguous, the doubt should be resolved against the waiver, since it should be presumed, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, that one has not disabled himself from the use of so valuable a privilege as enforcement of his mechanics' lien. There the waiver of lien recited 'labor and heating material to date' and the court held that the waiver was partial. However, in the case before us, the language of the waivers is clear and unambiguous.

Courts have often been called upon to consider the efficacy of a waiver as a bar to a foreclosure of mechanics' lien. In Wolff Co. v. Gwynne, 246 Ill.App. 86, 91 (1st Dist., 1927), the court noted, 'where the waiver pertains only to one of several forms of remedy, and in no way modifies or extinguishes the actual obligation, a release or waiver of lien under seal is a bar to proceedings under the lien statute,' even where consideration is lacking. A general or full waiver which was given 'on account of labor of materials, or both, furnished or which may be furnished,' was held to prevent enforcement of a lien for the unpaid balance. Similar language in a lien waiver was held to be a complete defense to lien foreclosure in Hyde Park Inv. Co. v. Hyde...