Battaglia v. 736 N. Clark Corp.
47 N.E.3d 314
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Landlord Gino and Bernadette Battaglia leased commercial premises at 736 N. Clark Street to 736 N. Clark Corp. (25 Degrees) under a five‑year triple‑net lease requiring tenant to pay "all building expenses, costs and taxes ... fees ... and other monetary burdens levied against the property."
- After a 2012 reassessment increased property taxes, landlords retained counsel to appeal and obtained a $16,085 tax reduction; they were billed $4,021 in attorney fees for the appeal.
- Landlords demanded reimbursement from tenant for the $4,021; tenant paid monthly rent and taxes but refused to pay the invoice.
- Landlords served a five‑day notice (mailed to the premises rather than the lease notice address) and sued in forcible entry and detainer seeking damages and possession; a four‑day bench trial followed.
- Trial court found the lease’s "additional rent" catchall included the tax‑appeal attorney fees, awarded landlords $4,021 but denied possession, and ordered payment be made over five months; neither side awarded attorneys’ fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tax‑appeal attorney fees are "additional rent" under §4.3(a) | §4.3(a) is a broad catchall; fees are "costs/fees" landlords incurred that benefited tenant | Plain language does not expressly include landlord's attorney fees for voluntary tax appeals; "fees" does not mean "attorney fees" here | Court upheld trial court: fees are part of "additional rent"; finding not against manifest weight of evidence |
| Whether landlords' procedural defects (notice sent to premises; lump‑sum demand vs. monthly proration) bar recovery | Procedural defects were immaterial; money still owed under lease | Landlords failed to comply with lease notice and proration rules, invalidating demand and relief | Court affirmed: procedural defects did not defeat recovery; court treated issue as mutual breaches and entered split judgment |
| Whether five‑month proration of judgment was proper (tenant asked 12 months; landlord 3 months) | Landlord sought short proration (3 months) | Tenant sought longer proration (12 months) | Court exercised discretion; five months is a reasonable compromise and affirmed |
| Whether either party is entitled to attorneys' fees from this litigation | Landlord sought fees but trial court denied as split decision | Tenant sought fees for prevailing on possession; argued entitlement on appeal if judgment reversed | Court affirmed denial: split decision favored each side on different issues, so no fee award |
Key Cases Cited
- Dargis v. Paradise Park, Inc., 354 Ill. App. 3d 171 (bench‑trial judgments reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence)
- Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207 (trial judge credibility determinations entitled to deference)
- Judgment Services Corp. v. Sullivan, 321 Ill. App. 3d 151 (definition of manifest weight and review standard)
- Bunge Corp. v. Northern Trust Co., 252 Ill. App. 3d 485 (de novo review appropriate when contract unambiguous)
- Dow v. Columbus‑Cabrini Med. Ctr., 274 Ill. App. 3d 653 (trial court construction of ambiguous contract will not be reversed unless against manifest weight)