FIRST DIS TRICT SIXTH DIVISION DECEMBER 17, 2010 No. 1-10- 1002 ) TH E V ILL AGE OF P ALATI NE , a Municipa l Cor po ra t ion, ) ) Pla int iff, ) ) v. ) ) Appe al fro m the PALATINE ASSOCIATES , LLC, SEARS ROE BUCK ) Ci rcu i t Cou rt of AN D COM PAN Y, an d PRO JECT B AY

EXCH AN GE, ) Co o k C o un t y.

) Defendan ts. ) No. 06 L 51257 ) (One Hour Clean

ers, ) Ho no r ab le De f en da n t-A pp el l an t, ) Al exan der P. Whi

te, ) Judge Presidin

g. v. ) ) Palatin e Associates, LLC, )

Def endan t-App el l ee.) )

) JUS TI CE ROB ER T E . G ORD ON d elivered t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Ga rc ia and J ust ice McB ride co ncur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON This ap pea l arises fro m a co ndemnat ion p ro cee ding br ou ght by the V ill age of P alat ine (t he Village) , se eking t o a cqu ire p ro per t y in Palat ine, I lli nois, t hat was being us ed fo r a sho pping cent er . T he Village p aid o ver $6 milli on t o d efenda nt Palat ine Asso ciat es, LLC ( Palat ine A ss oci ate s) , the ow

n er of th e p rop er

ty , i n j us t com pen sa ti on , f rom wh i ch an y cl ai m s of th e te n an ts wa s to b e a

pp orti on ed . A pp el l an t On e H our Cl ea n er s f i l ed a p eti ti on se ek i n g c om pen sa ti on f or i ts t ra de fixt ur es, which wa s de nied by the t rial co ur t on P alat ine Asso ciat es’ mo t ion t o d ismi ss t heNo. 1-10- 1002

1 Palat ine Asso ciat es d id no t st at e t he st at ut or y basis for its mo t ion t o d ismi ss, but t he pa rties an d th e tr i al cou rt tr ea ted th e m oti on as a m oti on f or sum mar y j udgm en t. 2 pe ti ti on 1 , ba sed

on a f i ndi ng th at One Hour di

d not hav e an

i ntere st i n the con dem na tion awar d. One H ou r Clea ner s ap pea ls, ar guing t hat it had an inte re st in the c ond emnat ion aw ar d. We affir m. BACK GROUND Pal ati ne As soci ates was the owner of

the property

at i ssue i n th i s ca se (s ubj ect property) , whi ch contai ns a s hoppin g center wi

th a num ber of tenan

ts, incl udin g Sears and On

e Hour Cleane rs. One H ou r Clea ner s wa s a t enant on t he su bject pr op er t y pur sua nt t o a lease a ssignment
en t er ed int o o n D ec emb er 20 , 19 82
. I n t he as sig nme nt , On e H o ur Cle an er s a gr ee d t o “a ss ume and p er for m all dut ies and obligat ions r equ ired by the t er ms of t he lease ” o f the for mer less ee a nd
ac kn o wle dg ed an d a gr ee d it wa s “lia ble fo rall t he t er ms, co ve na nt s a nd co nd it io ns o f t he sa id l eas e an d un derst[ood] speci

f i cal l y the provi sions of

Arti cle X.” Se cti on 8.1 of th e l ea se con tai n ed af f i rm ati v e c ov en an ts m ade b y th e te n an t:

“ Section 8. 1 Af

firmat ive Covenants. Tenant coven ants at it s e xp en se at all t imes du r ing t he Le as e T er m an d s uc h fu r t he rt ime
as Te nan t o cc up ies t he L ea se d P re mises o r a ny pa rt t her eo f, * * * M. To remove, at the ter mi nation of this Lease, provided Tenant is not in def

ault, such of Tenant’s moveabl e trad e fi xtures, and o t her per so nal pr op er t y, as a re not per manent ly aff ixed t o t heNo. 1-10- 1002

3 Leas ed P re mises; t o r emove suc h of t he alt er at ions a nd ad dit ions and s igns made by Tenant as La ndlo rd may requ est ; t o r epa ir any damag e ca use d by suc h re moval; and pea cea bly to yield up t he Leased Prem

is es and al

l a lterations and addi tions thereto (except such as Landl

ord has requested T enant to remove) and all fi xtures, fur nish ing s, flo o rco ve r ing s a nd eq uip men t wh ich ar e p er man en t ly affixed t o t he Lea sed Pr emises, including ca rp et , w hich, fo r t he pu rp ose of th i s L ea se

sh al l b e deemed

to b e p er man en tl y af f i x ed to the Le as ed Prem i se s, w hi ch sh al l the reu pon be com e the p rope

rty of t he Land lor d, in clean and go od or der , r epa ir and co ndit ion, damag e by fire o r o t her unavo idable ca sua lty exce pt ed. Any pe r so na l p r o pe r t y o f T en an t no t r emo ve d w it hinfive ( 5) da ys follow ing suc h t er minatio n shall, at Land lor d’s o pt ion, beco me the propert y of

the Landl

ord.” Articl e IX of the lease contai

ned a sec tion concerni

ng the ef fect of a taki

ng of the s

ubj ect pr op er t y by em

inent d omain:

“ Section 9.2 Eminent Domain. If the wh ole of the L eased Prem i se s sha l l be taken by an y publ i c a uthori ty un der th e p ower of
em in ent domai n, the Lease

Term sh all c ease as of

the day po ss es sio n sh all be t ak en by su ch pu blic a ut ho r it y, a nd T en an t sha ll pa y ren t up to th at d atewi th a n a ppr opri ateref un d by La nd l ord ofNo. 1-10- 1002

4 such ren t asmay ha ve be en pai d i n a dvan cef or an y period
su bs eq ue nt to th e datepos se ss i on i

s ta ken. *** A l l

com pens ati on awa rd ed fo r a ny tak ing und er t he po wer of e minent d omain, whet her for t he who le or a pa rt of t he Lea sed Pr emises, shall be t he propert y of

Landl ord, whether such dam

ages sh all b e awarded as
co mpensa t ion fo r d imi

nut ion in t he value of t he lease hold or t o t he fee o f the Leas ed P re mises o r o t her wise a nd T enant her eby assigns t o L andlo rd all of t he T enant ’s r ight s, t itle and inter est in and t o a ny an d a ll su ch co mpe nsa t io n; p r o vid ed , ho we ve r , t ha t La nd lo r d s ha ll not be ent itled t o a ny awar d sp ecifically m ade t o T enant for t he t ak ing o f T en an t ’s t r ad e fix t ur es , fur nit ur e o rlea se ho ld impr o ve men t s t o t he ex t en t o f t he co st t o t en an t o f sa id im pro vem ents (exclusi

ve of Landl

ord ’s contribution), less dep re ciat ion co mput ed fr om t he da t e o f said impro vement s t o t he
ex pi rati on of the ori gi na l term of th i s Le ase .” Articl e X contain

ed a provis ion c oncerni

ng the tenan

t’s continue d occupation af ter termi nation of the le ase:

“ Section 1 0.10 Holdov

er by Te nant. In t he eve nt Te nant rem ai ns i n p oss es si on of the Le as ed Prem i se s af ter th e e xp i rati on of the tenancy

created hereunder, and wi thout the execution of a new lease, Te nant , a t t he o pt ion o f Landlo rd , sha ll be deemed t o beNo. 1-10- 1002

5 occupyi ng the Leas ed Premises as a tena nt from month to month, at t wic e t he Fixe d M inimum R en t an d p er ce nt ag e r en t , su bje ct t o all the ot her conditions, provisions and obli gations of this Lease i

n so f ar as the s am e are appl i cab l e to a m

onth-to-m

onth ten ancy .” There w as

also a prov i si on i n th e l ea se sta ti n g th at “ [a ]n y n oti ce or d em an d f rom La n dl ord to Tenan t or from Tenan t to Landl ord shal l be mail ed b y registered

or certi f i ed m ail .” The lease w as a mended seve ra l times t o e xt end t he da t e o f the t er minatio n of t he lease and to adj ust the amount of the rent. Af ter t he l ast amen dme nt, the termin

ation date of the l

ease was Jan uary 31, 200 4, an

d the ren t was $ 11,250

an nua l l y , or $937.5 0 per m

onth. One

Hour Cl ean ers rem ai ne d on the su bj ec t prop erty

an d pa i d re nt of $93 7.5 0 th

roug h A pri l 200 9; i ts p ay men ts f or March 2009 an

d April 2009 we

re for le ss than the

bal ance due. After Apri

l 2009, On

e Hour Cl eaners sto pped m

aki ng pay me nts to Palatin

e Ass ociates; i

t is n ot cl ear from

the record whether On e H o ur Cle an er s r ema ine d o n t he su bje ct pr o pe r t y. On Decemb er 22, 2 006, t he Vill age fi led a compl

ain t t o co ndem

n the subj ect pr oper ty so that it could bui

ld a police station, am

ong ot her m

unici pal uses. In i

ts complai

nt, the Vil

la ge so ught “to acq uire fee simple t itle in and t o t he r eal pr op er t y, t og et her wit h all im pr ove ments and appu rten an ce s a ttach ed to an d p ar t of sa i d r ea l estate ” des cri

b ed i n th e l eg al de scri pti on . In i ts pra yer f or re l i ef , th e V i l l ag e a sked

“ [t]h at p l ai nti f f , b y thi s p roce edi

ng , ac qui re th e ow ne rs hi p of the s aid property

i n f ee s i m pl e, f ree f rom a l l l i en s an d cl ai m s wh atsoever.” O ne

Hour Cl ean ers was named a s a p ar t y defenda nt t o t he co mplaint and was ser ved w ith p ro ces s, a nd t her e is no clai m that it did not receive al l requi red not ices.No. 1-10- 1002

6

On Ju ne 9, 200 9, t he t rial co ur t ent er ed t wo agr eed final j udg ment o rd er s co ncer ning t he Village’s c ond emnat ion ac t ion; ho weve r, One H ou r Clea ner s did no t agr ee t o t he o rd er s. O ne provided j ust compens ation to Sears for its leasehol d in the am ount o f $3.25 m

il li on. The other pro vided just compensation for “the fee si mpl e title to real propert y descri bed i n [the Vil lage’s] complai nt to condemn ***, subj ect o nl y to t he lease of Sears and excludi ng any in terest of Sears” for $6.15 mi

ll ion. The Vil la ge deposited the f

unds wi th the Cook Co unty treasurer, and on Jul y 9, 200 9, t he co ur t allowe d P alat ine Asso ciat es t o w ithd ra w t he bulk o f the awa rd of $ 6. 15 milli on, ord ering $2 m

il li on to be retained by

the Coo k Count y treasurer pending certain tenants’ in terest in t he aw ar d. On t he sa me d ay, t he co ur t en t er ed an o r de rve st ing t it le t o t he su bje ct pr o pe r t y in the Vil lage, subj ect t o t he lease of Sears and excludi ng any in terest of Sears. T he order a lso authorized the Vi

ll age to t ake i

mm edi ate possessi on of the sub je ct pro perty other than that por ti on occ up i ed b y Se ar s. A l so o n

Ju l y 9, t h e tr i al cou rt g av e l ea v e f or O n e H our

Cl ea n er s to fi le its appearan

ce i nstanter and to fi

le its peti tion f or appo rtionm

ent by August 11, 2009. On Jul y 27, 2009, On

e Hour Clean

ers fi le d its appearan

ce and a m

ot ion to have

a j udic ia l det er minatio n of it s po rt ion o f just co mpensa t ion, claiming to have a co mpensa ble inter est in the
awa rd t o P alat ine Asso ciat es be cau se it had impr ove d t he pr op er t y with “su bst ant ial cleaning fixtur es” t hat co nt ribut ed t o t he value of t he pr op er t y. Pa latine As so ciat es mo ved t o ba r O ne Hour Clean

ers’ cl ai m, an d on Septembe

r 9, 2009, One Hour Clean ers then f il ed an am ended peti tion f or just com

pensati on, cl ai m i ng th at i t had a com pensab l e i ntere st i n the awa rd. It in cl uded a statemen

t t hat it “ ha[d] been

a tenant at the subj ect proper ty si nce 1982 un

der a written l eas e, sa i d leas e b ei

ng r enewed on n um erous occ asi

ons th e last b ei ng i n 19 98, ex

pi ri ng i n 20 03.No. 1-10- 1002

2 The trial court ’s order in

cl uded l anguage f

rom Suprem

e Court Rule 304(a) (134 Ill . 2d R. 304(a)) indi

catin g that t here was n

o just reason f

or delay in g an appeal, but did n

ot in cl ude a statem en t that the March

18, 201 0, order w as a

f i na l and app eal

ab l e order. 7 The leasehol

d becam e a m onth to month tena

ncy .” One Hour Cle aners al so att ached an

apprais al of i ts tra def i xtu res to the am en de d pe ti ti on, wh i ch sugge ste d a

f ai r m ark et val ueof $76 ,85 0 f

or the tr ade fi

xtures. On Octo ber 8, 2009, Palatin e Associates fi

led a m ot ion to dismi

ss One Hour Cleaners’ cl ai m f or appo rtionm

ent. In i ts motion, Palatine

Associ ates made a

num ber of argum

ents that On e H our Cl ea n er s was n ot en ti tl ed to co m pen sa ti on b as ed on th e p rov i si on s of th e l ea se . In i ts res pon se , On

e H our C l ea

ne rs sta ted tha t the moti on to d

i sm i ss wa s “ pa ram oun t to a pe ti ti on f or sum ma ry j udgme nt,” and argued that there were is sues of f act to be determi

ned. Duri ng oral argum en t, Pal ati ne As soci ates a greed that the i r m otion wasi n the nature of

a m otion f or sum mary judgm ent, but argued that t here were n o questions of f

act. The trial

court is sued i

ts mem orandum decisi on and ord er on January 28, 2010, fi ndi ng that One Ho ur Cleaners did not have an y i nterest in the final awa rd , a nd de nied it s pe t itio n for co mpensa t ion. On Fe bruary 5, 2010, One Hour Clean ers fi le d a m ot ion to reconsi der, whi ch was de nied by the tri al court on M arch

18, 201 0. On

Apri l 7, 2010 , the tri

al court en tered a f i ndi ng th at there
wasno j ust rea son f

or del ay i ng a n a ppea l f rom i ts Mar ch 18, 201 0, order. 2 One Hour C l ean ers t he n file d t he inst an t ap pe al. AN AL YSIS On appe al , On

e H our C l ea

ne rs arg ue s th at the tri al cou rt er red i n f i nd i ng i n f av or ofNo. 1-10- 1002

3 The t rial co ur t did no t explain its hold ing, finding simply that “the Te nant do es no t have an i nterest in the fi nal award.” 8 Pala tine A ssocia tes, because i

t found as a m

atter of law that the leas e was termi nated and that One Hour Cl eaners di

d not have an

in terest in the condem

nation a ward. 3 We affir m. The standard o f revi

ew from the granting of sum mary judgm ent is de novo. Weather-Tite, Inc. v. Unive

rsity of St. Franci

s , 233 Il l . 2d 385 , 389 (2 009) (“

We revi ew ap

peal s f rom s um mary judgm ent rulin gs de novo ”) . T he Co de o f Civil Pr oc edu re (Co de) per mits a t rial co ur t t o g ra nt summary judg ment o nly “ if the p leadings , d epo sitio ns, a nd ad missions o n fil e, t og et her wit h t he affidavits , if any, sho w t hat t her e is no genu ine issue a s t o a ny mater ial fact a nd t hat t he moving party i s en titl ed to a j udgm

en t as a m atter of l aw.” 7 35 IL CS 5/2 -1005 (c) (W est 200 8). “Summar y judgment is a dr ast ic measu re and s hou ld o nly be grant ed if t he mova nt ’s r ight to judgm ent is cl ear and f

ree from doubt.” Outboard Marine Corp. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. , 1 54 I ll. 2d 9 0, 102 (1 992 ). Ho weve r, “[m]e re spe culat ion, co nject ur e, or gue ss is insufficient to withs tand sum ma ry j udgme nt.” Sorce v. Naperville Jee p Eagle, Inc. , 309 Ill . App. 3d 313, 328 (1999 ). A d

ef endan t mov i ng f or sum mary j udgm en t bea rs the i ni tia l bur den of proof. Nedzvekas v. Fung , 3 74 I ll. App. 3d 6 18, 624 (2 007 ). The defend ant may meet his bu rd en o f pro of e ither by affirmatively sho wing t hat so me element of t he ca se must be r eso lved in his favor , o r by establ is hi ng “ ‘that there is a

n ab sence of

evi dence to support the nonm ovin g party’s case.’ ” Id. , quot in g Celotex Corp. v. C

atrett, 477 U .S. 317, 3 25 (19 86). “ ‘The pur po se o f summary judg ment is no t t o t ry an issu e o f fact but *** t o d et er mine whether a triable

is sue of f act exi sts.’ ” Schrager v. North Com munity Bank , 328 Ill . App. 3dNo. 1-10- 1002

9

696, 708 (2002) (quo ting Luu v. Kim , 323 Ill . App. 3d 946, 952 (2001)). “ ‘To withstand a
sum ma ry j udgme nt motion, the n

onmovi ng party n

eed not prove his

case at this

preli mi nary stage but must present some f

actual b asi s that would support his cl ai m.’ ” Schrager , 328 Ill . App. 3d at 708 (quot in

g Luu , 323 Ill . App. 3d at 952). We may aff irm on any basis appeari

ng i n the record, wh ethe r or not the tri

al court rel i ed on that b asis or i

ts reas oni ng was c orrect. Ray Dancer, Inc. v. DMC Corp. , 230 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 40 , 50 (19 92). In addi ti on, thi s c as e c onc ern

s th e tri al cou rt' s i nte rpreta ti on of a c ontr ac t asa m atter of law. A co nt ra ct co nst ru ed a s a mat t er of law by the t rial co ur t may be co nst ru ed inde pend ent ly by
a rev i ewi ng c ourt, unre strai

ne d by the tri al court's j udgm en t. Fleet Business C

redit, LLC v. Enterasys Netw

orks, Inc ., 352 Ill . App. 3d 456, 469 (2004) (citin g Lewis X. Cohen Insurance Trust v. Ste rn , 29 7 Ill. App. 3d 2 20, 232 (19 98) ); Zale Construction Co. v. Hoffman , 14 5 I ll. App. 3d 235, 240 (1986). Accordingl y, our review from

a trial court 's i nterpretat ion of

a contract as a matter o f l

aw is de novo. A very v. State Farm M utual A utomobil e Insurance Co ., 216 Ill . 2d 100, 12 9 (200 5). I n t he ca se at ba r , On e H o ur Cle an er s c laims t o ha ve a c o mpe nsa ble int er es t in c er t ain
ma chi nery and dry cl eani ng equi pme nt because

they are trade fi

xtures. A trade fi

xture is personal pro pert y of the te nant t hat is affi xed to the r ealty for pur pose s of carr yi ng on t he tenant ’s bus i ne ss. Southw

est Bank of St. Louis v. Poulokefalos , 4 01 I ll. App. 3d 8 84, 889 (2 010 ) ( citing Nokomis Quarr y Co. v. Die tl , 33 3 Il

l . A pp. 3d 4 80, 484

(20 02) ); se e al so Sw

ord v. Low , 12 2 I ll. 487 , 4 99- 500 (1 887 ). The re is a re but t able pr esu mpt ion t hat items inst alled by a t enant for t he purpos e of

carry i ng on a trade are trad e f i xture s. Griffiths v. Of

fice of the State Fire Marshal ,No. 1-10- 1002

10

301 Ill. App. 3d 6 58, 661 (19 98) ; Sword , 122 I ll . at 499-500 . Cou rts also apply a three-part test to determi

ne wh ether a fi xture is a trade fi xture that considers “ (1) the mean s by whi ch the i tem h as b een an n exed to th e rea

l estate ; (2 ) w

h eth er i t i s a da pte d to a n d n ec es sa ry f or th e pur pos e to whi ch the prem

is es i s devoted; and (3) the i ntent of the parties.” Griffiths , 301 Ill . App. 3d at 661 (c iting B. Kreisman & Co. v. First Arlington National Bank, 91 Ill . App. 3d 847, 852 (1 980 )) . A t ra de fixt ur e is t he t enant ’s pr op er t y and may be re moved by the t enant so long as t he
rem oval does n ot damage th

e rea l ty. Southw

est Bank, 40 1 Il

l . A pp. 3d a t 889 ; s eealso Schreiber v. Chicago &

Evanston R.R. Co. , 115 Ill . 340, 345-46 (1885). Thus, unl ike a fi xture, whi ch beco mes pa rt of t he r ealt y belonging t o t he landlo rd , a t ra de fixt ur e r emains t he pr op er t y of t he tena nt an d com pensati on f or a trade f

i xture taken by em i nent dom ai n is owed to the tenan

t. Empire Building Corp. v. Orput & Associates, Inc. , 32 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 83 9, 841 ( 1975)
. In the case at ba

r, One Hour Clean

ers’ equi pme nt and m achi nery are considered trade f i xtures . W

h i l e O n e H our

Cl ea n er s a ttem pts to f ra me th e statu s of

th e i tem s a s a qu esti on of f act, Pala tine A ssocia tes accepts their ch

aracterizati on as trade fi

xtures, as do we. Thus, as a general
ma tt er, if the Vi ll age too k One Hour Cl eaners’ trade fi xtures by em in ent domai n, One Hour Clean ers woul d be

en titl ed to a porti on of

the c omp en sati

on award. However, the terms of the l ease be tween One Hour Cleaners an d Pala tine A ssocia tes prev en t One Hour Cl ean ers f rom b ei ng c omp en sated

f or its trade f i xture s. A s an

i ni tia l matter, even though the le ase expi

red in 2004, the terms of the l

ease still governed the deal

in gs between One Hour Cl eaners an

d Pala tine A ssocia tes. One Hour Clean

ers contin ued to o ccupy

the subj ect pr op er t y and pa y rent t hro ugh Ap ril 200 9; aft er Apr il 2009 , O ne Ho ur Cleane rs c eas ed p ayingNo. 1-10- 1002

11

rent. Under the holdover provisi on in the le ase, the l essee b ecam e a m onth-to -month tenan

t when On e H o ur Cle an er s c o nt inu ed t o po ss es s t he su bje ct pr o pe r t y; O ne Ho ur Cle an er s a r gu es t ha t it was a hol dover tenant and n

ot a m onth-to -month tenan

t. We need n

ot resolve this

dis pute sin ce unde r e ither kind o f te nancy, t he t er ms of t he wr itt en lease co nt inue t o g ove rn t he co nduc t of t he parties. Roth v. Dillavou , 359 Il l . Ap p. 3d 10 23, 102 7 (200 5). The lease’ s condemnation cl ause, found in s ection 9.2 o f the lease, pro vides:

“ A l l com pe ns ati on a wa rde d f or an y taki ng un der th e p ower of
em in ent domai n, whether f

or t he wh ole or a part o f the L eased Premises, sha

ll be the property of La

ndl ord, whether such dam

ages shall be awa rd ed a s co mpensa t ion fo r d imi nut ion in t he value of t he leaseho ld o r t o t he fee o f the Leas ed P re mises o r o t her wise a nd T en an t he r eb y as sig ns t o La nd lo r d a ll o f t he T en an t ’s r igh t s, t it le and i nterest in and to any

and al l s uch com pensation; provided, howe ver, that L andlord shal

l not be en titl ed to an y awar d specifi cally ma de to T enan

t for the taking of Ten

ant’s trade fixtur es, furnit ur e o r leas eho ld impro vement s t o t he ext ent of t he cost to tenant of said im

pro vements (exclusive of Landl or d’s
co nt r ibu t io n) , les s d ep r ec iat io n c o mpu t ed fr o m t he da t e o f sa id im provemen ts to the expi

ration of the origi

nal term of thi s Lease.” Th us , un der th e terms of

the l ea se , On e H our C l ea

ne rs as si gned al l of i ts ri gh ts to c om pens ati on to Pa l ati n e Ass oci ate s ex ce pt f or “ an y aw ard s pe ci f i ca l l y made” to On e H our Cl ea n er s f or i tsNo. 1-10- 1002

12

trad e fi xtures. Par t ies can includ e a c lause in a co nt ra ct go ver ning t heir r ight s t o c omp ensa t ion in t he
ev en t of a c ondem

na tion procee di ng. S ee, e.g. , Corrigan v. City of Chicago , 144 Ill . 537, 549- 550 (18 93) ; United States v. Petty Motor Co. , 32 7 U. S. 372 , 37 6 (1 946 ); United States v. 1.357 Acres of Land , 308 F .2d 200 , 203-0 4 (7th C i r. 1962 ); Select Lake City Theatre Oper ating Co. v. Central National Bank in Chicago , 2 77 F .2 d 81 4, 817 (7 t h Cir. 196 0) . O ne Ho ur Cleane rs a nd Pal ati n e Ass oci ate s i n cl uded such a c l au se , a gr ee i

n g th at On e H our

Cl ea n er s was n ot en ti tl ed to
an y com pen sa ti on ari si n g f rom i ts l ea se h ol d i n terest un l es s th ere w as a s pe ci f i c a wa rd made f or i ts trad e f i xtu res . There

wa s n o such sp ec i f i c a wa rd m ade. The con de m na ti on a wa rd c ons i sts

of $6 .15 m i l l i on f or “ th e f ee si m pl e ti tl e to rea l prope rty de scri b ed i n [the Vi l l ag e’ s] com

pl ai n t to co ndemn ** *, subjec t only t o t he lease of S ear s and exclud ing any inter est of S ear s.” The re is no
re f eren ce to On e H our Cl ea n er s or to trade f i xtures . Th

us , O n e H our

Cl ea n er s is n ot en ti tl ed to any port ion of

the compensation award. One H ou r Clea ner s ar gue s t hat t her e is no re quir ement t hat “all claim s for app or t ionment
m ust b e con

tai ne d wi thi n the i ni tia l condem na tion awar d asa m atter of l aw.” One Hour Cl ean ers m i si nte rpretsPal ati ne A ss oci ate s’ arg um en t. Pal ati ne A ss oci ate s is n ot arg ui ng tha t asa m atte r of law, al l cl aim s for appor tionmen

t must be incl

uded in the condemn

ation award. Instead, it argues,
an d w e a gr ee , that given the la nguage of the lease , in

order for One Hour Clean ers to be entitl ed to recei ve com pensation, there must hav e been a specifi c award for i

ts tr ade fi xtures. Therefore, upon our de novo review, One Hour Cl eaners h as no i nterest in the compensation award. A ddi ti ona l l y , as an othe r b as i s, we al so f

i nd tha t One H our C l ea

ne rs wa s p rev

en ted f romNo. 1-10- 1002

13

claiming any por t ion o f the co mpensa t ion aw ar d bec aus e t he lease t er minated at t he t ime the Vil la ge too k possession of the Subj ect Pro perty. Under the l ease, One Hour Cleaners’ trade fixtur es w er e divided into “movea ble” and per manent t ra de fixt ur es. Unde r se ct ion 8 .1 (M) of t he l ea se , On e H our C l ea

ne rswa s enti

tl ed to rem ove i ts m ove ab l e tra

def i xtu res at the term

i na ti on of the lease, whi

le i ts permanent tr ade fi

xtures became the prop erty of Palatine A ssociates. We must consider the status o f eac h of thes e subcategories

to determi

ne wh ether One Hour Cl eaners h ad any in terest in the com

pensation award. Under the l

ease, One Hour Cleaners’ move abl e trade fi xtures i ncl uded all trade f

ix tures not permanen

tly aff ix ed to t he property. As trade f ix tures, t he m

oveabl e trade fi xtures rema

in ed One Hour Cl eaners’ propert y, an d One Hour Cl eaners coul d remove them

. See Southw

est Bank, 401 Ill. App . 3 d at 889 . I n fact , u nder t he lease , O ne Ho ur Cleane rs w as r equ ired t o r emove t he
move abl e trade fi xtures at the termin

ation of the l

ease; i f On e Hour Clean

ers di d not remove them wi thi n f i ve day s, the y could be com

e Pal ati ne As soci ates’ property

at Pal ati ne As soci ates’ option
. However, there is n

o indi cation that One Hour Cleaners actuall y rem oved i ts moveab le

trade fi xtures. De sp i te O n e H our

Cl ea n er s’ i n terest i n i ts m ov ea b l e trade f

i xtures , i t wa s n ot en ti tl ed to
an y co mpe nsa t io n fo rt he m be ca us e t he y we r e n o t t ak en . On e H o ur Cle an er s a r gu es t ha t t he r e is
no r eq ui rem en t tha t the Vi l l ag e n ee de d to spe cif

i cal l y se ek trad e f i xtu res i n i ts c ond em na ti on co mpla int fo rt he m t o be inc lud ed in t he co nd emn at io n a wa r d. Ho we ve r , t he co mpla int is requi red to contai

n a des cri pti on of the property

sough t. 735 IL CS 30/10-5- 10 (W est 200 8). In t he ca se a t bar , t he Village t oo k a fee simple tit le in the r eal pr op er t y desc ribed in theNo. 1-10- 1002

14

co mplaint bu t did no t indicat e t hat it w as se eking a ny per so nal pr op er t y, which w ou ld include t he
move abl e trade fi xtures. “As

a m atter of comm

on la w, a taking of

real e state o r a leasehold does not aff ect the ownershi

p of personal

propert y on, b

ut not aff ix ed to, the premi

ses.” National R.R. Passenger

Corp. v. Faber Enterpris es, Inc. , 93 1 F .2d 438 , 44 2 (7 th C i

r. 1 991 ). Th

us , we ca nn ot f i nd tha t One H our C l ea

ne rs sh oul d have b een c om

pens ate d f

or property

tha t the Vi l l ag e di d n

ot take and that One Hour Clea ners h ad the righ

t t o remove unde

r the leas e. The ot her cat ego ry o f tr ade fixtur es d efined by t he lease was t he ca t ego ry o f per manent trade fi xtures, which i

ncl uded trade fi

xtures perma

nen tly aff ix ed to t he property. Under the l ease, onc e t he lease was t er minated , p er manent t ra de fixt ur es be came t he pr op er t y of Pa latine Associ ates. Thus, if

the le ase was term

in ated, t hen One Hour Cl eaners would not have h ad an in terest in an

y c ompen sation award b ecause i t assign ed i ts in terest in i ts perman ent trade fi

xtures to Palatin e Associates. We find t hat t he lease was t er minated . U nder t he lease ’s co ndemnat ion clau se, “[i]f t he who le of t he Lea sed Pr emises sha ll be tak en by any public au t hor ity und er t he po wer of e minent do main, t he Le as e T er m sha ll ce as e a s o f t he da y po ss es sio n sh all be t ak en by su ch pu blic
au thor i ty .” The Vi l l ag e dep osi

ted the con de m na ti on a wa rd wi th th e C ook C oun

ty Tre asure r on Jul y 7, 2009, an

d an order vesti

ng title i n the Vi ll age was en

tered on July

9, 2009, whic

h al lowed the Vi ll age to t ake i

mm edi ate possessi on of the Subj ect Pro perty, except f or t he portion occupie d by Sears. Thus, the l ease termi nated on Jul

y 9, 2009. One Hour Cl eaners argues that t he l ease was n

ot termi nated on Jul

y 9, 2009, but was term i na ted on Nove m be r 4, 200 9. O n Nove

m be r 4, 200 9, th

e V i l l ag e f

i l ed an em erg en cy moti onNo. 1-10- 1002

4 Palat ine Asso ciat es a lso r aises issu es w ith O ne Ho ur Cleane rs’ metho d o f valuat ion, spe ci f i cal l y wi th the appra i sal sub m i tted. Howev

er, si nc e we h av e f ound th at One Hour C l ean

ers has n o interest i

n the award, there i s no need to consi der this is sue. 15 for im medi ate po ssession because Al l A meri can Title A

gency , anot her one of Palatine Associates’ ten an ts, ref us ed to va ca te the sub j ec t prop erty. W e do not f i nd tha t the l ea se term i na ted on Nov em b er 4, 2 00 9, r

ath er th an on Ju l y 9, 2 00 9. A

s of Ju l y 9, 2 00 9, t

h e Vi l l ag e h

ad a ri gh t to t ake imm ediat e po sses sion o f the subjec t pr op er t y; the fa ct t hat so me te nant s re fused t o a llow t he Vil la ge to po ssess the

propert y does n

ot extend the term of

the le ase. Additionall

y, One Hour Cleaners’ argum ent that it retained all

of its righ

ts under t he lease because it was gran

ted leav e to fil e a petiti on for apportionmen t prior to the entry of

the Jul y 9, 2009, order vesting ti

tle i s unpersuas iv

e. The terms of

the le ase governed the ri

ghts of the parties to compensation, an

d the le ase provided that it would termi nate when

the Vi ll age too k the subj ect propert y b

y e mi nen t do ma in . Thus, the le ase termi

nated on Jul

y 9, 2009, an

d Pala tine A ssocia tes ha d o wn er ship o f t he pe rman en t t r ad e fix t ur es . “A le as e p r o visio n g r an t ing o wn er ship r igh t s in fi xtures to t he l

andl ord*** prevents the tenant from recoverin

g the val ue of any im provemen ts.” Faber , 931 F.2d at 441 (citin g Select Lake , 27 7 F .2d

at 8 17) ; s eealso Corrigan , 144 Ill . at 549- 50
. . T he r efo r e, t he t er minat io n p r o visio n a lso pr ev en t ed On e H o ur Cle an er s fr o m an y int er es t in the compensation award. 4 Fi na l l y , On e H our C l ea

ne rs arg ue s th at the term

i na ti on provi si

on a nd the con de m na ti on claus e cre ate an

am bi gui ty as to the own

ersh i p of property at the ti me of term i na tion of the leas e. W e do not f

i nd tha t arg um en t pe rs ua si ve . The term

i na ti on provi si

on provi de d that a

t the ti me ofNo. 1-10- 1002

16

t er minatio n, O ne Ho ur Cleane rs ha d o wner ship o f its mo veable t ra de fixt ur es, while Palat ine Asso ciat es ha d o wner ship o f the per manent t ra de fixt ur es. The co ndemnat ion clau se a llowed One Ho ur Cleane rs t o r eco ver for an aw ar d sp ecifically m ade for its t ra de fixt ur es. Thu s, s ince One Hour Cl ean ers on l y had an i ntere st i n i ts m ovea bl e trade f i xture s, i t woul d be

en titl ed to an awar d sp ec i f i ca l l y made f or th e m ov ea b l e trade f

i xtures . Si

n ce th ere w as

n on e, th ey

are n ot en ti tl ed to
an y thi ng. CONCLUSION We f in d that One Hour Clean

ers had n o interest i

n the com pensation award becaus e (1) there wasno sp eci

f i c awa rd m ade f or its trade f i xture s an d (2) the m

ovea bl e trade f i xture s we re not t ake n and t he t er minatio n claus e ga ve o wner ship o f the per manent t ra de fixt ur es t o P alat ine Associates. Af f i rmed.