## Facts

- A developer planned a multi-family apartment project and hired an engineering firm to perform planning and design services largely performed off the premises.
- Before any recorded mortgages, the engineer performed limited on-site activity consisting of twelve six-inch soil borings that were filled and staked.
- The developer later acquired the land and granted/confirmed two mortgages in favor of a mortgagee; both mortgages were recorded.
- On-site construction began about one month after the mortgages were recorded.
- The project failed and the engineer was not paid in full.
- The engineer filed an action to foreclose a construction lien, claiming its lien had priority because the “improvement” had commenced before mortgage recordation.

## Issues

1. Whether off-site engineering and planning services performed before mortgage recordation constitute “commencement of the improvement” for construction-lien priority.
2. Whether minimal preliminary on-site work (small, filled borings and stakes) constitutes “commencement” by providing continuing visible notice that improvements were in progress.
3. Whether recorded mortgages have priority where no visible, on-site commencement existed at the time of recordation.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the priority determination that had favored the engineer.
- Off-site engineering work, standing alone, was insufficient to constitute “commencement of the improvement” for priority purposes.
- “Commencement” required on-site labor or materials that provided visible evidence of an improvement so as to give continuing notice to third parties.
- The pre-mortgage borings and stakes did not provide continuing visible notice of a construction project.
- The recorded mortgages had priority over the engineer’s construction lien.

## Legal Principles

- For construction-lien priority, “commencement of the improvement” is tied to on-site work or materials that are visible and reasonably signal that an improvement is being made.
- Professional services (e.g., engineering/design) may be lienable, but off-premises performance does not, without visible on-site activity, trigger relation-back priority ahead of subsequently recorded mortgages.
- Minimal or transient on-site investigative activity that does not provide continuing visible notice is insufficient to establish “commencement” for priority against later-recorded encumbrances.
- Lienability of services and the date determining lien priority are distinct; a valid lien may exist while its priority does not relate back to the start of off-site services.

## Conclusion

The court held that construction-lien priority cannot relate back to the start of off-site engineering services absent visible, on-site commencement that gives continuing notice; because the pre-mortgage borings were not sufficient notice, the mortgagee’s recorded mortgages took priority over the engineer’s lien.


Williams & Works, Inc. v. Springfield Corp., 408 Mich. 732, 293 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. 1980)