ComEd acknowledges that, generally, we review damages awards under the manifest weight of the evidence standard. See 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶13. However, ComEd contends that the damages award in this case was the product of errors of law, not errors of fact, so a de novo standard of review should apply.
¶ 127 An award of damages will not be overturned unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman , 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13, 374 Ill.Dec. 957, 996 N.E.2d 652 ; Drakeford v. University of Chicago Hospitals , 2013 IL App (1st) 111366, ¶ 55, 373 Ill.Dec. 634, 994 N.E.2d 119. A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident or where the findings are unreasonable, arbitrary, and not based upon any of the evidence.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 16. "Arm's length" means "[o]f or relating to dealings between two parties who are not related or not on close terms and who are presumed to have roughly equal bargaining power."
¶ 95 Similarly, an award of damages after a bench trial's standard of review is whether the trial court's judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13. In order to overturn a damages award, a reviewing court "must find that the trial judge either ignored the evidence or that its measure of damages was erroneous as a matter of law.
¶ 31 Robert asserts that a failed offer to purchase is not competent evidence of value of the options. See 1472 Milwaukee, LTD v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191 ¶ 19 ("Fair market value of real property is based on actual sales, where a closing has occurred, not on pending sales."). 1472 Milwaukee involved the determination of the value of real estate to determine damages after the defendant breached his contract to purchase the property.
The trier of fact is in a superior position to determine the credibility of witnesses and the weight to give to their testimony. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 21. Unless the opposite conclusion is evident from the record, the reviewing court will not substitute its judgment for that of the trier of fact on matters of witness credibility, the weight of the evidence, or the inferences to be drawn from the evidence. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 21.
Breslin also argues that Plaintiffs rely only on speculation in calculating the amount of loss. While Breslin correctly notes that Plaintiffs cannot recover speculative damages, see, e.g., 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 17, Plaintiffs have sufficiently set forth a basis for their $10,305,302.24 request for the diminution in value of the premises due to the SNFs' loss of their operational licenses. In the absence of evidence from Breslin to the contrary, the Court only has before it Nyland's declaration, which suffices to provide a reasoned basis for their request.
A damages award is against the manifest weight of the evidence where the trial court ignored the evidence, or its measure of damages was erroneous as a matter of law. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13; Meade, 277 Ill.App.3d at 1018. An award of damages is not against the manifest weight or manifestly erroneous if there is an adequate basis in the record to support the trial court's determination of damages.
"An award of damages is not against the manifest weight or manifestly erroneous if there is an adequate basis in the record to support the trial court's determination of damages." 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13.
Likewise, the standard of review over the trial court's award of damages is whether the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence. 1472 N. Milwaukee, Ltd. v. Feinerman, 2013 IL App (1st) 121191, ¶ 13, 996 N.E.2d 652. Decisions concerning awards of prejudgment interest are also based on questions of fact, and the trial court's determination will not be disturbed on review unless contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Pietka v. Chelco Corp., 107 Ill.App.3d 544, 558, 437 N.E.2d 872, 883 (1982).