No. 1-06- 0538 Fi rs t Di vi si on Fi le d: 8-6-07 PE LET ON, IN C. , a n Illinois Co rp or at ion, ) Appeal from the ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of Pl ai n ti f f -A pp el l an t, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) ) v. ) No. 00 CH 12761 ) McGIVERN’S, INC., d/b/a Great Godfrey )
. Dani el s, an Ill i noi s Corporation , TIMOTHY P. ) McGIVER

N, and CHICAGO TITLE A ND TRUST ) COMPANY A S TRUSTEE, u/t No . 33969, ) Ho no r ab le

. ) Pet er Flynn, Defendan ts-Appellees. ) Judge Presidin g. JU STI CERO BE RTE. G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: T his case i s aboutat t o rne y fee s. Aft er a b en ch t r ial, t he cir cu it co ur t of Co ok Co unt y found f or pl ai nti f f on t wo of t he se ven co unt s in its c omp laint. Defend ant s have not app ealed t hat finding and th usth e iss ue s of th e u n derl y i n g l es sor-les se e d

i spute are n ot at i ss ue i n th i s ap peal
. On Novem ber 22, 200 5, th

e tri al cou rt de ni ed pl ai nti f f ’s pe ti ti on for atto rney

fees and ordered pla int iff and d efenda nt McGi

vern’ s, Inc., to each pay

hal f of the atto rney

fees of def endan t Chi cago T it le and Trust Compan

y. On January 24, 2006, t he trial

court determi

ned that t he amo unt of t he atto rney fee s a wa rd t o t he t ru st co mpa ny wa s a t o t al o f $2 3, 01 3. 04 and o rd er ed pla int iff a n d def endan t McGi vern’ s to each

pay ha l f
. Only p laint iff

h as appe al ed th e a ttorn ey f ee s a wa rd . O n appe al, pl

ai n ti f f doe s n ot dispute t he reasonabl enes s of the amoun

t of th e a wa rd ed f ee s, b ut c on

tests o n l y th e tr i al cou rt’ s dec i si on to
awar d th em an d to den y th em to plaint iff

. Fo r t he r eas ons dis cussed b el ow, t he j udgme nt of the trial court is aff irm ed.No. 1-06- 0538

2 BACK GROUND In a lease da t ed Se pt emb er 1, 19 87 , de fen da nt Ch ica go T it le and Trust Compan y, as trust ee under tru st No. 3 39 69 , lea se d th e s ub j ect prope

rty known as 1 0027 Skokie Boul evard, Skokie, Ill in ois, to defen

dant McGi

vern’ s, Inc. On May

20, 199 6, def

endan t McGi vern’ s, In c., sublea sed t he subj ect prope rty t o pla int iff, Pe let o n, I nc . Bo t h d efe nd an t Mc Giv er n’s an d p laint iff ar e I llino is corp orat ions. Defe

ndan t Tim ot hy McGi ver n is the pr eside nt of Mc Giver n’s and nego t iate d and executed t he subl

ease on behalf of def

endant McGiv

ern’s. In the sublease, plain

tiff agreed t o pay att orney fees under the following conditions: “Subles ee a gr ees t o ind emnify , d efend an

d hol d harm

l es s L es sor

and it s ben efi ci aries , Subl essor and each of their respective partners, ag en ts and empl

oyees, from and agai

nstany and all clai ms, demands,
costs an d e xp ense s of

ev ery ki nd a nd n ature, in cl udin g atto rney s’ f ees and li tigation ex

penses , a rising fro m Subless ee’s oc cup ancy o f the Premises dur ing t he ter

m of th i s S ub l ea se

or f rom i ts br ea ch o rde fau lt on t he pa rt of t he Su blessee in the per for mance o f any agr eement or any c ov enant of S ublesse e t o be per for med o r p er for med und er t he Lease or th

isSubl ea se o rpu r su an t t o t he t er ms o f t he Le as e o rt his Sublease, or from any

act or neglect of Subl

essee or i ts agents, offi cers, empl oyees, guests, serv an

ts, i nv i tee s or cu stom ers i n or about the Pre m i ses .” (Em

phasi s ad ded.)No. 1-06- 0538

3

In the subl ease, def endan t McGiv ern’s a greed to pa y at t or ney fees u nder t he fo llowing conditions:

“ Subl es sor ag re es to i n dem n i f y an d h old h ar m l es s S ub l es se e a

n d i ts agents, par t ner s, o ffi

cer s, d irect or s, s har eho lder s and em ploy ees f rom anyand all claim

s, liabilities, demand s, c aus es o f act ion, co st s and expenses of e

very ki nd a nd n ature, in cl ud in g atto rney

s’ f ees and li ti ga ti on expenses ari sin

g from or at tributable to Su bless or’ s occupancy

of the Prem i se s th roug h th e dateof Cl osi ng orfr o m a ny breach by S ub le ss or of

an y of i ts w arran ti es , re pre senta ti ons or cov en an ts contain ed herei n or from an

y a ct or negl ect of Subl es sor

or i ts ag en ts, of f i cers , em

pl oyee s, g ue sts , se rv an ts, i nv i tee s or cus tomers.” (Em

phasi s ad ded.) In addi tion, both defe

ndan t McGiv ern’s a nd pl ai ntif f agreed i n the sub le ase: “Allcosts a

nd e xpe ns es i ncurre d by a n o n- de fau lt ing pa rt y in enfo rc ingt he t er ms andpr ovisio ns o f the Le as e o rt his S ub lea se sha ll be paid by no n-p re vailing

pa rt y immed iat ely

upon d em and theref or.” On Au gust 30 , 2 000, pl ain

tiff sued defendants McGi

vern’s an d Chicago T itle an

d Trust Co mpany see king a d eclar at or y judgment t o e nfor ce t he t er ms of t he sub lea se an d o t he req uit ab le
re lief. On Febr uar y 7, 2 003 , p laintiff amended its c omp laint t o a dd T imot hy McGiver n, p re sident of def endan t McGi vern’ s, as a def en dan t. The am

ended com

pla in t contained

seven counts. The first three co unt s s o ug ht a d ec lar at o ry ju dg eme nt t hat pla int iff ha d a r igh t t o r ema in in

th e s ub j ect propertyNo. 1-06- 0538

4

b ec au se : (1 ) the s

ub l ea se wou l d n ot ex pi reun ti l A ug ust 31 , 20 05 ; (2 ) Pe l eton

exercise d i

ts option to extend the suble ase; an d (3) “ Mc Gi

v er n wai v ed h i s r i gh t to ta ke pos se ss i on

of th e p rop er

ty and to wri tten n otice .” Coun

ts IV, V a

nd V I were f or unj ust enr ichment, equ itable e st op pel and ref orm ati on of contr act. Count V II was againstdefend ant Tim ot hy McGi vern al one and sought $1 million in da mag es fo r t o rt io us int er fe rence with cont ract . In its answe r, d efendant McGivern’s in cl uded a counterclai

m that sought i

mm edi ate p o sses sion o f the subjec t pr op er t y, do uble t he r ent sin ce Sept emb er 23, 2 000, and at to rney f ees and costs. Aft er a benc h trial , the trial court is sued an oral

ruli ng on Jul y 7, 2005, wh

ic h was l ater
em bodie d i n a n orde r dated A ugust 23, 2005 . The

tria l courtdeclared that pl

ai n ti f f h ad th e ri gh t to
r ema in in the subj ect premi ses un

til August 31, 2005. Th e c o ur t ent er ed jud gme nt in favo r o f pla int iff
on cou nts II and III and on de fendant’s coun terclai m ; di sm i sse d asm oot counts I, IV, V

and V I; a nd
en tered j udgm

en t in f avor of de f

endan t Tim othy McGi vern on coun t VII On Jul y 7, 2005, t he t r ial c o ur t o r ally gr ant ed t he o ra l mot ion o f defend ant Chicag o T itle and Trust Compan

y to fi le a petition f

or at to rney

fees under the l eas e. In i ts Au gust 23 rd o rder, t he trial courtpermi

tt ed any party wi shi

ng to file a petition f or at to rney

fees to do so and set a heari

ng on f ee pet itio ns for October 26, 2005. In an order dat ed Novem ber 22, 200 5, t he t rial co ur t held, “for t he
re aso ns stated in open

court ," that plai

ntif f’ s f ee petiti on was deni

ed and def endan t Chi cago Tit le and Trust Company’spe ti

ti on was granted. Al

though the orders of August 23 and Novem ber 22, 2005, i n di ca te t hat t he co ur t held a he ar ing co ncer ning t he fee p et itio ns and stated i n ope n c ourt t he r eas ons f or i ts f ee ru l i n gs , the rec ord

on appe al doe s n ot i n cl ude a copy of th e h ea ri n g transcri

pt.No. 1-06- 0538

5

In the Novem

ber 22, 200 5 order, t he trial court ordered t he parties to subm it addi tional briefi ngson th e iss ue of th e rea son

ab l en es s of th e a ttorn ey f ee s s oug h t b y th e def endant tr ust
com pan y . On Ja nuar y 24, 200 6, t he trial court awarded the trust co mpa ny $23,013.04 in a

tt orney fees and ordered plai

ntif f an d defen dant McGi

vern’ s each to pay

half t he a mo unt . I n o rd er ing p laint iff and defen dant McGi

vern’ s each to pay

hal f, the trial court noted: “Nei

theris e nt ire ly

fr ee fr o m fau lt here; n ei ther is entirel y to blam e.” AN

AL YSIS Standard of Revi

ew “G en er ally, a tri

al cou rt’ s dec i si on to a wa rd a ttorn ey f ee s is n ot rev ers ed ab sent a n a buse of di scre tion .” Gue rra

n t v . R oth , 334 Ill . App. 3d 259, 262 (2002), citin g Pietrzy k v. Oak Lawn Pavilion, Inc. , 329 Ill . App. 3d 1 043 , 10 46 ( 200 2); Mi rar Devel opmen t, Inc. v. Kroner , 308 Ill . App. 3d 483, 485 (1999) (normally an award of atto rney

fees “will not be r ever sed on r eview u nless t he courtabuse d i

ts di scre tion ”). “The rat ionale f

or this standar d is that a part y chal lengi ng a tr ial cou rt ’s de ci si on r eg ar din g a t t o rne y fee s is ac t ua lly chall enging the tr ial

cou rt ’s dis cretion i

n determi ni ng what is reasonabl

e.” Gue rr ant , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 262-63, citin g P iet r zyk , 329 Ill . App. 3d at 1046. Howev er, the part ies on appeal

do not contest the reaso nabl enessof the trial

cou rt’ s dec i si on co ncer ning

the am oun t of t he at t or ney fees. Inst ead , p laintiff cont est s t he trial court ’s concl

usion that t he lease a nd su blease g ave t he t rial co ur t t he au t hor ity eit her t o a war d de fendant Chicag o T ru st and T it le Com pa n y attor n ey f ee s or to deny them to plai

ntif f. Thus the normal

rationale does no t ap pl y. Our sta nd ard of re view in the cas e at bar is tw ofo ld. Fir st , t o t he ext ent t hat t he tria l court in terpret ed the ter ms of the l

ease and subl

ease, ou r review i s de novo . Thi s court has hel d thatNo. 1-06- 0538

6

“[w]he re the tri al court[has ] determ

i ne d the c ons

tructi on of

the *** ag ree men t asa m atter of la w, we co nst ru e t he co nt ra ct unr est ra ined by the trial court ’s j udgme

nt, and ourstandard o f revi ew is de
novo .” Gue rr ant , 334 Ill . App. 3d at 263; P iet r zyk , 3 29 Ill. App . 3 d a t 10 47 (“ Be ca us e t he p laint iff he r e is not

dispu t ing t he t rial co ur t ’s ca lculat ions [ of a t t or ney fees] , bu t is co nt ending o nly that t he trial cour t mis applied the law, *** t he standard o f revi ew is de novo ”); Mi

rar , 308 I ll. App. 3d at 485 (att orney fees award was revi

ewed de novo “[w] her e fact s ar e unc ont ro ver t ed a nd t he issue is the ci rcui t court’s a

ppl i cation of the l aw”)
. Second, to th e exten

t th at th e tr i al cou rt app li ed the terms of the

contract t o t he f

acts, our reviewis based on an

abuse of dis cretion standard. At i ssue i n thi s case is whe t her t he defend ant qualif ie d as a “no n- pr ev ailing pa r t y,” a fin din g t ha t t he su ble as e r eq uir ed be fo r e t he co ur t co uld awar d atto rney fees. This co ur t re viewed almost t he exa ct same issu e in Powersv. R ockf ordStop-N-G o, Inc. , 326 Ill. App . 3 d 51 1 ( 200 1) . I n Powers , t he t er m “ prevail in g part y” was i

n a lease as a prere qui si te to the awa

rd of attorney f ees . Wi th res pect to the a

ppropri ate stan dard o f r ev iew , t his
co ur t in Powershel

d: “W hether ei ther p arty pre vai le d or co mpelled t he o t her t o o bey the lease i n th e tri al cou rt b el ow i nv ol ve s a n a ppl i ca ti on of th e f acts to t his pr inc iple of

l aw . Th eref ore , i t remai ns a mat t er co mmi

t t ed t o t he di sc re ti on

of the trial

court [citation], and the

question b efore us i s whether t he t r ial c o ur t ab us ed it s d isc r et io n w he n it determi ned that pla in tif f was the prevai

li ng party.” Powers , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 516.No. 1-06- 0538

7

Defend ant McGiv

ern’s f ail ed to fi le an appell ee’s brief and def

endant Chicago T itle an

d Trust Company f

il ed an appe ll

ee’s bri ef wi thout ci tation to cases or statute. The

Ill i noi s Suprem

e Court has h el d that when a rev

ie win g court la cks an appel

le e’s b rief , it m ay stil l de ci de the i ssues, if they
areclear f rom th e rec ord. In re

Marri age of Rogers , 213 Ill . 2d 129, 135 (2 004). In the i nstant case, t he iss ue s a r e c lea r , an d w e c an de cid e t he m ea sily ? without t he aid of an appell ee’s brie f. ” In re Marri age of Rogers , 213 Ill . 2d at 135.

De nial o f At t o rn ey Fe es t o Pla int iff “Contractual

provisi ons f or anawar

d of a ttorney f ees m ust b e stri ctl y construed, an

d the court must det er mine the int ent ion o f the par t ies re gar ding t he pay men t of f ees .” J.B. Esker & Sons, Inc.
v. Cle
- pa ’s Pa r t ne r ship , 32 5 Ill. App. 3d 2 76, 281 (20 01) ; Jackson v . Hamm er , 274 Ill . App. 3d 59, 70 (19 95) (same) ; My

ers v. Popp Enterprises, In c. , 216 Ill . App. 3d

830, 838 (1991) (“As attor ney fees we r e s pe cific ally a ut ho r ize d b y t he co nt r ac t , it was error for the tr ia l c ourt to fai

l to provide

f or them ”). In the s ubl eas e, def endan t McGi vern ’s an d pla

in tif f agreed that: “A

ll costs and expenses in curredby a non- defau lting par t y in enforc ing t he t er ms andpro vi sions of the Lease or this Sublease sha ll be pa id by non- pr evailing par t y im mediat ely upo n demand there f or” (paragr aph 15 (d)) . Thus, to award atto rney

fees t o p laintiff, t he t rial co ur t had t o find t hat defend ant McG ivern’s was “the nonprev ail i ng p arty .” In its b rief to the trial

court on the is sue of attorney f ees, def endan t McGiv ern’s c la im ed that pla int iff was not a prevail

in g party bec ause i

t “prevai le d on only

two o f i ts seven clai m s (Coun ts II and I I ) , lo st o n o ne o f it s c laims ( Co un t VI I ) an d h ad it s r ema ining fo ur cla ims (Coun ts I, IV , V , a ndNo. 1-06- 0538

8

VI) dismissed a s moo t .” Defend ant McGivern’s cl ai med th at i t h ad “ actual l y pr ev ai l ed on th e h i gh eststakes clai m i n the case – Pelleton’s pursui t of com pensatory da mag es f or tor ti ous i n terf eren ce wi th pr os pec t iveec on om

i c advan ta ge, d am

ages that Pel l eton al l eged to exce ed one m

i l l i on dol l ars.” In a wr itt en o rd er dat ed N ove mber 2 2, 200 5, t he t rial co ur t denied plaint iff ’s fee p et itio n “ f

or t he reas ons s

tated i n open c ourt.” Unf

ortunatel y , the re cord

on appeal does not incl

ude a copy

of t he hear ingt r an sc r ipt
. T hu s, t his court does not know t he trial court ’s reasons a

nd speci fi cally whether it accepted def

endan t McGiv ern’s a rgumen ts on the ? prev

ail i ng p arty ” i ssue. “The l aw i s wel l settl ed th at a pp el l an ts b ea r the d uty to ‘presen

t a recor d *** whi

ch fairly and fully pres en ts al l matters necess ary an

d ma terial for a deci sion of the questi on rais ed.’ ” Smol in ski
v. Voj ta , 363 Ill . App. 3d 752, 757 (2006), quo ting LaPlaca v. Gi lb ert & Wolf

, Inc. , 37 I ll. App. 3d 259, 260 -61 (19 76) ; In

re M arr i ag e of Sha rp , 36 9 I ll. App. 3d 2 71, 274 (20 06) ; Web ster v. Hartman , 195 Ill . 2d 426 , 432 (2 001). “H owever, even if t he r ec o r d o n app ea l is inc o mple t e, co ur t s ha ve he ld that appella

te review is not precluded, where the record contain s thatwhi ch is n ecessary to dispose of the i ssues i

n the case .” In re

Marri age of Wa rd , 282 Il l . Ap p. 3d 42 3, 430 ( 1996)
. “[W]h en t he record on a ppe al is inc om

ple t e, a r ev iew ing co ur t sho uld ac t ua lly ‘ind ulg e in ev er y re as o na ble pre su m ption fav orable to the judgm

ent ***.’ ” Smol

in ski , 363 Ill . App. 3d at 757-58, quo ting Pe o ple
v. Maj er , 131 Ill . App. 3d 80, 84 (1985). In the case at ba r, the re cord

i s s uf f i ci en t f orth i s c our

t to dispose of the issues. T his courthas he ld t hat a “pr evailing par t y, for pur po ses o f awar ding atto rney fees , is one tha

t is successf

ul on a signifi cant i ssue and ach

ie ves s ome b enef

it i n bri ngi ng sui t.” Esker , 325 Ill . App.No. 1-06- 0538

9

3d at 280 ; Jack son, 27 4 I ll. A pp . 3d at 70 ( sa me)
. T his c as e is compl ic atedby the fac t t hat al though plai ntif f succeeded on a sign

if ican t issue, so did defendants. On the one hand, a li

tigant do es not have to succeed on all its claim s t o be consi dered a pr evailing party . Powers , 326 Ill . App. 3d at 515 . On the other hand, “ when th e d i spute in volv es mult iple claims andbo t h p ar t ies ha ve wo n a nd lo st o n d iffer en t cla ims, it may be inappr op riat e t o find that either party is the prevai li ng party.” Powers , 326 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 515. Plai nti f f pre va i l ed on both c oun

ts II an d II I of its com pla in t; however, the trial

co ur t fou nd that these counts rais ed

“ess entia ll y *** the sam e poin t." In its order dated August 23, 2005, the trial courtf ound th at both c ounts “ see

k es sen tia l l y the s am e corerel i ef : a de cl ara ti on th at Pe l l eton

has t he ‘right to remai

n as s ublesee unti

l a t leastA ugust 3 1, 2 005 .” In a

ddi ti on, pl ai nti f f pre va i l ed on defendant’s counterclai

m, wh ic h ha d so ught immed iat e p o ss es sio n o f t he su bje ct pr emis es an d d o ub le the rent after Sept emb er 23, 2 000. T hus, plai ntif f prevai led on two claim

s. De f en da n ts pr evailed o n co unt VI I, and t he t rial co ur t ent er ed jud gment in favor of d efenda nt Timot hy Mc Giv er n. I n c o un t VI I , pla int iff ha d s o ug ht $1 million in compensator y dam

ages agains

t defend ant Tim

ot hy McGi vern, wh o as presiden

t had negotiated and ex

ecuted t he su ble as e o n be ha lf of defen dant McGi

vern’ s. Thus, def

endan ts also prevai

le d on a signifi

cant i ssue, nam

ely , defendants’ al l eged tortious i nterf eren ce wi th con tract. In essen ce, t he t r ial c o ur t ’s de cis io n g av e e ac h sid e s o met hing : p laint iff co uld re main on t he subj ect pr emises; and defend ant s did no t hav e to p ay f or al l eg ed i n terf eren ce wi th con tract. In i ts order da t ed Ja nu ar y 24 , 20 06 , t he t r ial c o ur t st at ed : “ Ne it he ris e nt ire ly f ree f rom faul t here; nei therNo. 1-06- 0538

10

is en ti re l y to b l am e. ” W i th each si de pr evailing on a significant iss ue, t his co ur t canno t find tha t t he t ria l co ur t abu se d it s d iscr et io n in r efu sing t o aw ar d a t t o rn ey fee s t o pla int iff.

Award of Atto rney F ees to Defendan t Chicago Title and Trust Plai ntif f cl ai me d that it should not have to pay h al f of defen dant trust co mpa

ny ’s l egal fees. How ev er , s i n ce pl ai n ti f f f ai l ed to ci te a ca se , s tatu

te or oth er l eg al au th ori ty i n i ts a pp el l ate b rief to
s upport thi s cl ai m , plai ntif f wai ve d con siderati

on of thi s cl ai m on ap peal
. Rosier v. Ca scad e Mou ntain, Inc. , 3 67 I ll. App. 3d 5 59, 568 (2 006 ) ( t his co ur t held t hat , by failing to offer any sup po rt ingle gal

authority or reasoni

ng, pla int iffs w aiv ed co nsid er at io n o f t he ir t heo ry for asse rt ing personal jurisdi ction over

defendant s); Pe o ple v. W ard , 215 Ill . 2d 317, 332 (2005) (“A poin t raised in a brief b ut not supported by citat ion t o r elevant aut hor ity *** is t herefo re fo rfeited ”); Fer gus on v. BillBerger Associ

ates, Inc. , 302 Ill . App. 3d 61, 78 ( 19 98 ) (“ i t i s no t ne ce ss ar y t o de cid e t his question si

nce the defe ndan t has wai ve d the i ssue” b y f ail i ng to of f er ca se c i tation or other su

pport
as Supreme C ourt Rul e 341 r eq uir es ) ; 2 10 I ll. 2d R . 3 41( h)( 7) (a rg ument in appe llate br ief must be supp orted by

ci tation ). In ad dit io n, pla int iff faile d t o pr es en t a c o mple te record o n thi s i ssue. In i ts order dated Novem ber 22, 2005, t he trial

court granted

defendant t rust company’spe ti ti on f or attor ne y f ee s “ f or t he reasons stated in

open court. ” As prev

iousl y n ot ed, the record o n appeal does not incl

ude a copy of t he he ar ing t r an sc r ipt
. Sin ce t he r ec o r d o n app ea l is inc o mple t e, we wil l “ ‘ i ndu l ge i n every r ea so na ble presum

ption f avorabl e to t he j udgme

nt.’ ” Smol

in ski , 363 Ill . App. 3d at 757-58, quo t ing Maj er , 131 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 84..No. 1-06- 0538

11

In the order dated January 24, 2 006, fi nding defendant tr ust company’sat t or ney fees t o be reasonabl e, the court noted its authority to award fees under ar t icle 7 o f the lease a ndparagrap hs 7 and 15 of the sub le ase. Artic le 7 pr o vid ed t ha t t he les se e, de fen da nt Mc Giv er n’s , sha ll pa y “ al l costs and r ea so na ble at t o rne y fee s” if : ( 1) “t he Le ss o r[ de fen da nt t rus t co mpa ny] sha ll wit ho ut an y de fau lt on its part, be m

ade party to any

li tigation com

me nced by or aga inst t he Les see , a nd ari si ng out of
orby vi rtue o f this lease”; or (2 ) i f the Le ss orincur re d t he at t or ney fees a nd co st s “in enfor cing t he
cov en an ts and agreements of the lease.” Defen dant t rust compan

y was enti tled to att orney f

ees under the ex pre ss term s of ar t icle 7 bec aus e “wit hou t any defaul t o n i ts party” i t was “m ade party to *** l i ti ga ti on commen ced *** against

t he lesse e. ” No ne o f the par t ies alleged a de fault by defenda nt tru st company ; i

t was almost a bys

tander t o t he di spute bet ween plai ntif f an d defendant McGi

vern’s. Paragraph

7 o f t he su bl ease bound pl ai ntif f to the terms of the l

ease i ncl udin g article 7. Paragraph

7 pr ovid ed t hat “Subles see [p laintiff] her eby assu mes and shall be bo und byt he Le as e wi th t he same r ight s, p ow er s, p rivileges, dut ies and responsi bi li ties wh ic h Sublessor has un

der the Lease, except as expres sl

y s et for t h in this Su blease. ” Pa ra gr aph 1 5( d) , a s no t ed be for e, gave t he co ur t t he
au th ori ty to aw ard l i ti ga ti on co st s a nd e xpe nse s a ga inst a “n o n- pr eva iling p ar t y.” Bo t h pla int iff and de f en da n t Mc Gi v er n ’s were“n on -p re v ai

l i n g” pa rties wi th r es pe ct t o de fe nd an t t rus t co mp an y. As noted be fo r e, a “ pr ev aili ng pa r t y, for purposes of awardi ng attor ney

fees , is one tha

t is succ essf

ul on a sig nif ic ant is sue a nd ach

ie ves s ome b enef

it i n bri ngi ng sui t.” Esker , 325 Ill . App. 3d at 280; Jack son, 274 Ill . App. 3d at 70 ( sa me). Ne i the r pl ai nti f f nor defend ant McG ivern’s pr evailed o n “a si gn i f i ca n t i ss ue ” a gai n st d ef en da n t tru st c om

pa n y or ach i ev ed “ som e b en ef i t” f rom su i n g i t.No. 1-06- 0538

12 CONCLUSION Fo r the rea son

s s et f orth ab ov e, we

af f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt. Af f i rmed. McB RIDE, P.J . and CA

HILL , J., con

cur.