Find Legal Information

FOURTH DIVISION

September 13, 2001

No. 1-00-3820

JUSTICE THEIS delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Kevin Fox, filed a forcible entry and detainer actionagainst defendant, Commercial Coin Laundry Systems (Commercial),alleging that it breached the terms of a laundry-room lease by failingto make timely rental payments. After considering cross-motions forsummary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of Commercial andagainst Fox. The sole issue before this court is the properinterpretation of a lease providing for semiannual rent payments. Forthe following reasons, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

On July 2, 1987, Commercial entered into a lease with the ownerof the premises at 316 Marengo Avenue in Forest Park to operate alaundry facility for use by the tenants. The lease was assumed by Foxin August 1998 and was set to expire on July 2, 2006, by court order. The form lease agreement provides in pertinent part:

"LESSEE shall pay to LESSOR as rent for thedemised premises * * * a sum equal to fifteen percent of the dollar amount of LESSEE'S coin receiptsfrom the aforesaid coin operated equipment duringthe period that this Lease shall continue in fullforce and effect. The aforesaid payments shall bemade to the LESSOR semi-annually."

On January 27, 2000, Fox wrote Commercial a letter stating thathe understood the lease terms to require payment of the rent onJanuary 2 and July 2 of each year and that, while accepting three latepayments in the past, he would consider future late payments to be abreach of the lease. When rent was not forthcoming on July 2, 2000,Fox served a five-day notice of termination of tenancy on Commercialdated July 3, 2000. When no rent was paid within the five-day noticeperiod, Fox then filed a forcible entry and detainer action on July14, 2000, seeking delinquent rent and possession of the laundry-roomfacility. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, eacharguing their respective interpretation of the contract terms. Afterconsidering the motions, the trial court granted judgment in favor ofCommercial and against Fox, finding that Commercial had not breachedthe payment terms of the lease.

On appeal, Fox contends that the trial court erred in denying hismotion for summary judgment where the language of the contract and therules of construction support his interpretation of the lease termsproviding that rent payments are to be made "semi-annually." Whenreviewing the entry of summary judgment, the sole function of thiscourt is to determine whether the trial court correctly ruled that nogenuine issue of fact was raised and, if none was raised, whether thejudgment was correctly entered as a matter of law. 100 W. MonroePartnership v. Carlson, 319 Ill. App. 3d 761, 766, 745 N.E.2d 554, 558(2001). We review the trial court's ruling de novo. Carlson, 319Ill. App. 3d at 766, 745 N.E.2d at 558.

In interpreting the rental terms of the lease, we are guided bygeneral principles of contract construction. Williams v. Nagel, 162Ill. 2d 542, 555, 643 N.E.2d 816, 822 (1994). Thus, we must giveeffect to the intent of the parties as expressed in the language ofthe contract. Scoville Court Condominium Ass'n v. Orozon, 171 Ill.App. 3d 932, 935, 525 N.E.2d 1109, 1110 (1988). The contract "shouldbe given a fair and reasonable interpretation based on considerationof all its language and provisions." Shelton v. Andres, 106 Ill. 2d153, 159, 478 N.E.2d 311, 314 (1985). Where there is any doubt oruncertainty as to the meaning of the language used in the lease, itshould be construed most strongly against the drafter. NutraSweet Co.v. American National Bank & Trust Co. of Chicago, 262 Ill. App. 3d688, 695, 635 N.E.2d 440, 445 (1994).

The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines"semiannually" as "every half year" or "twice a year." Random HouseDictionary of the English Language 1740 (2d ed. 1987). Fox maintainsthat the rent was due "every half year" and that the January 2 andJuly 2 due dates can be determined by reference to the leasecommencement date of July 2, 1987, and the July 2, 2006, expirationdate. Commercial argues that the terms of the lease merely providefor two rental payments every year and that there has been a course ofdealing for the past 13 years to pay rent sometime in January andJuly.

We find Fox's interpretation is the better reasoned one in thecontext of this contract. While there are no Illinois cases directlyconstruing the meaning of "semiannually" in the context of a leasewith no other fixed rental due dates, it is clear that a valid leaserequires a definite agreement as to the time of payment. Weiman v.Butterman, 124 Ill. App. 2d 246, 252, 260 N.E.2d 321, 324 (1970). Furthermore, "where by the contract the rent is payable either yearly,half-yearly, quarterly, monthly, or weekly, and there is no provisionfor payment at any particular time during such periods, eitherexpressly made or to be gathered by necessary implication[,] *** therent is not due and payable until the end of those respectiveperiods," unless there is a custom or agreement indicating analternative due date. 49 Am. Jur. 2d Landlord and Tenant