The party seeking attorney fees bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence from which the trial court can render a decision as to their reasonableness. Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture (1992), 233 Ill. App.3d 221, 235; Kaiser v. M E P C American Properties, Inc. (1987), 164 Ill. App.3d 978, 983. Plaintiffs submitted a detailed affidavit containing a summary calculation of the time spent on the case, the hourly rate, the total fees due and an itemized summary of billing.

¶ 26 We reject Khan's argument and affirm the judgment order against him, relying on Johns v. Klecan, 198 Ill.App.3d 1013 (1990), Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iriquois Venture, 233 Ill.App.3d 221 (1992), and Bosch Die Casting Co., Inc. v. Lunt Manufacturing Co., Inc., 236 Ill.App.3d 18 (1992). ¶ 27 In Johns, the plaintiffs in a personal injury action against Georgeann Klecan filed a petition for adjudication of attorney's liens, seeking the denial of any attorney fees to respondents, Nicholas B. Blase and Fred Lambruschi, in connection with their representation of the plaintiffs in the suit against Klecan.

Conversely, when the language of a contract is unambiguous, the intent of the parties at the time the agreement was entered into must be determined from the language used in the agreement itself, not from the construction placed upon it afterwards by the parties. ( Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture (1992), 233 Ill. App.3d 221, 230.) An ambiguity is not created merely because the parties disagree as to the meaning of a contract clause.

Our role is to determine whether the circuit court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed and whether it correctly granted Lannom's cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Gaddis's motion. Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture, 233 Ill.App.3d 221, 237 (1992). Where, as in here, the parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment, they agree that only questions of law are involved, and the court may decide the issues based on the record.

Pielet v. Pielet , 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 28, 365 Ill.Dec. 497, 978 N.E.2d 1000. "Our function is to determine whether the trial court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed and whether it correctly entered summary judgment * * *." Morningside North Apartments I, LLC v. 1000 N. LaSalle, LLC , 2017 IL App (1st) 162274, ¶ 10, 412 Ill.Dec. 433, 75 N.E.3d 413 (citing Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture , 233 Ill. App. 3d 221, 237, 174 Ill.Dec. 371, 598 N.E.2d 1003 (1992) ). Furthermore, "[i]t is the trial court's judgment and not its reasoning that is on appeal."

Pielet v. Pielet, 2012 IL 112064, ¶ 28. "Our function is to determine whether the trial court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed and whether it correctly entered summary judgment." Morningside N. Apartments I, LLC v. 1000 N. LaSalle, LLC, 2017 IL App (1st) 162274, ¶ 10 (citing Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture, 233 Ill. App. 3d 221, 237 (1992)). Furthermore, "it is the trial court's judgment and not its reasoning that is on appeal."

judgment in favor of one party while denying summary judgment to the opposing party. Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture, 233 Ill. App. 3d 221, 237 (1992). Generally, when parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, they are in agreement that only questions of law are involved in the appeal and the reviewing court should decide all issues based on the existing record.

Our role is to determine whether the circuit court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed and whether it correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and denied the defendants' crossmotion for summary judgment. Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture, 233 Ill. App. 3d 221, 237, 598 N.E.2d 1003, 1013 (1992). When, as in this case, the parties file crossmotions for summary judgment, they are in agreement that only questions of law are involved and that the court may decide the issues based on the record.

John Munic Meat Co. v. Gartenberg & Co., 51 Ill. App. 3d 413, 416, 366 N.E.2d 617, 620 (1977). The question of whether a constructive eviction occurred is a question of fact. Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture, 233 Ill. App. 3d 221, 231, 598 N.E.2d 1003, 1009 (1992). We will disturb the finding of a constructive eviction only if it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Our function is to determine whether the trial court correctly found that no genuine issue of material fact existed and whether it correctly entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. Fitzwilliam v. 1220 Iroquois Venture , 233 Ill.App.3d 221, 237, 174 Ill.Dec. 371, 598 N.E.2d 1003 (1992). It is the trial court's judgment and not its reasoning that is on appeal. Material Service Corp. v. Department of Revenue , 98 Ill.2d 382, 387, 75 Ill.Dec. 219, 457 N.E.2d 9 (1983).