- 6 -
The Mall argues that by granting Showplace's motion for
summary judgment, the trial court erroneously (1) imposed on the
Mall, as a commercial landlord, a duty to replace its tenant's
roof and (2) allowed Showplace to set off payments after Show-place
replaced the roof. We address the Mall's contentions in
A. The Standard of Review
A trial court should grant summary judgment only when
no genuine issue of material fact exists. Hernandez v. Alexian
Brothers Health System, 384 Ill. App. 3d 510, 518, 893 N.E.2d
934, 940 (2008). "Summary judgment is proper where, when viewed
in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the plead-ings,
depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file reveal that
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the
moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
Northern Illinois Emergency Physicians v. Landau, Omahana, &
Kopka, Ltd., 216 Ill. 2d 294, 305, 837 N.E.2d 99, 106 (2005). We
review de novo a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion
for summary judgment. Coole v. Central Area Recycling, 384 Ill.
App. 3d 390, 395, 893 N.E.2d 303, 308 (2008).
B. The Mall's Claim That the Trial Court Erred by
Finding That It Was Responsible for Replacing the Roof
The Mall argues that the trial court erred by imposing
on it, as a commercial landlord, a duty to replace the roof.
Specifically, the Mall contends that its commercial tenant,
Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.