labor or material, and its lien was properly recorded on June 2, 2009. See MCL 570.1111(1). Therefore, we agree with the trial court’s determination that RCG perfected its hen. However, if a lien claim has not been adjudicated when a dispositive ruling on the underlying contract claim is made, and questions regarding the validity of a plaintiffs lien remain, they can be resolved in conjunction with a motion to award attorney fees. The plaintiff then would still have the burden to prove the validity of the lien. See Skyhook Lift-Slab Corp v Huron Towers, Inc, 369 Mich 36, 39; 118 NW2d 961 (1963) (stating that the plaintiff bears the burden of demonstrating compliance with the statutory requirements necessary for a lien claim); In re Eddy Estate, 354 Mich 334, 348; 92 NW2d 458 (1958) (<HOLDING>). 23 MCL 570.1105(2). The fact that RCG was not
holding that a plaintiff in an erisa denial of benefits case bears the burden of proving her entitlement to contractual benefits holding that the defendant bears the burden of proving outside contact with the jury holding that the party seeking to pierce the corporate veil bears the burden of proving that grounds for this action exist recognizing that the party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of proving entitlement to those fees holding that chanenge to the amount of attorney fees was not preserved for appeal where appellants objection challenged only the entitlement to fees