A party that receives judgment in his favor is usually considered the prevailing party. Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Construction Corp., 268 Ill. App.3d 677, 687, 645 N.E.2d 376, 383 (1994). Although in some cases a court may decide there is no prevailing party, the court properly declined to make such a finding here.

Further, the party requesting attorney fees bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence from which the circuit court can make a decision regarding the reasonableness of the fees. Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Construction Corp., 268 Ill. App.3d 677, 688, 645 N.E.2d 376, 384 (1994). The construction contract entered into between Mirar and the Kroners expressly states:

¶ 66 Generally, in civil litigation, variance between the pleadings and the proof “will not be deemed material unless it misleads the adverse party to his [or her] prejudice.” Cummings v. Dusenbury, 129 Ill.App.3d 338, 346, 84 Ill.Dec. 615, 472 N.E.2d 575 (1984); Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Construction Corp., 268 Ill.App.3d 677, 685, 206 Ill.Dec. 371, 645 N.E.2d 376 (1994). ¶ 67 The State's petition alleged New suffers from the mental disorder paraphilia not otherwise specified, listing no other mental disorders.

Grossinger Motorcorp, Inc. v. American Nat'l Bank and Trust Co., 607 N.E.2d 1337, 1348 (Ill.App.Ct. 1992) (internal citations omitted). See also Jackson, 653 N.E.2d at 818 (same); Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Constr. Corp., 645 N.E.2d 376, 383 (Ill.App.Ct. 1994) (same). As we noted, although Raffel recovered an additional month of rent and three months of late fees, he was not successful on the most significant issue in the litigation, the penalty clause.

1275 (2001); see also, Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Constr. Corp., 268 Ill.App.3d 677, 687, 645 N.E.2d 376, 383 (1994). "The success [OfficeMax] had in defeating [DikaHomewood's] claim[s] against it and in securing [a judgment in its favor] on [its] counterclaim[s] undoubtedly indicates that it was the prevailing party."

Under this rule, a party may be entitled to fees as the prevailing party even if he did not succeed on every issue or claim he raised or did not obtain the maximum relief he sought. See Timan v. Ourada, 972 N.E.2d 744, 753 (Ill.App.Ct. 2012); J.B. Esker & Sons, Inc. v. Cle-Pa's P'ship, 757 N.E.2d 1271, 1277 (Ill.App.Ct. 2001); Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Const. Corp., 645 N.E.2d 376, 383 (Ill.App.Ct. 1994); see also Abellan v. Lavelo Prop. Mgmt., LLC, 948 F.3d 820, 835 (7th Cir. 2020) (applying Illinois law). But a trial court may also determine, in such mixed result cases, that neither party prevailed, see, e.g., Raffel v. Medallion Kitchens of Minnesota, Inc., 139 F.3d 1142, 1143 (7th Cir. 1998), or that “both parties [are] successful on significant issues in the action, ” Med+Plus Neck & Back Pain Ctr., SC v. Noffsinger, 726 N.E.2d 687, 694 (Ill.App.Ct. 2000), such that the outcome is essentially a stalemate, or a “draw.”

The party requesting attorney fees bears the burden of presenting sufficient evidence from which the appellate court can make a decision regarding the reasonableness of the fees. Id.; Mirar Dev., Inc., 308 Ill. App. 3d at 488; Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Construction Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 677, 688 (1994); Kaiser v. MEPC Am. Properties, Inc., 164 Ill. App. 3d 978, 983 (1987). A petition for fees must supply the Court with "detailed records containing facts and computations upon which the charges are predicated specifying the services performed, by whom they were performed, the time expended and the hourly rate charged."

However, we cannot say they were insignificant to Kempner Mobile. And, Kempner Mobile did obtain jury verdicts establishing liability on both of those claims, and obtained an affirmative (albeit small) recovery. The party who receives a judgment in its favor is usually considered the prevailing party, Tomlison v. Dartmore Construction Corp., 645 N.E.2d 376, 383 (Ill.App. 1994), and we see nothing in the language of Paragraph 24 of the Agreement to suggest otherwise. Cingular argues against this interpretation, asserting that "the parties here did not intend that any recovery, however, minimal, would provide a blank check for an award of fees" (Cingular Mem. at 6).

We find that Urban was a prevailing party for purposes of the fee-shifting provision. See Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Construction Corp., 268 Ill.App.3d 677, 687 (1994) (finding that the plaintiffs were the sole prevailing party where "the trial court entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against defendant and ordered defendant to pay plaintiffs the amount of the judgment").

A party that receives judgment in his favor is usually considered the prevailing party. Tomlinson v. Dartmoor Construction Corp., 268 Ill. App. 3d 677, 687 (1994). A prevailing party does not have to succeed on all its claims; it is also possible for neither party to be the prevailing party.