Full Opinion

NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 251262-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is October 26, 2026 not precedent except in the NO. 4-25-1262 Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT MICHELMANN STEEL CONSTRUCTION ) Appeal from the COMPANY, an Illinois Corporation, ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, ) Adams County v. ) No. 19L32 LINK MEDIA MIDWEST, LLC, a Delaware Limited ) Liability Company, ) Honorable Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. ) Scott Douglas Larson, ) Judge Presiding. JUSTICE CAVANAGH delivered the judgment of the court. Justices DeArmond and Grischow concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: (1) Unless the lease agreement provides the tenant a reasonable time after termination of the lease for removal of trade fixtures and other personal property of the tenant, the tenant must remove such personal property while the tenant is in possession of the premises in the character of a tenant during the original lease term, a renewed lease, or a successive lease, and if the tenant fails to do so, the property becomes the landlord’s property. (2) Absent a demonstration by citation to relevant authorities that the replacement value of the property, as opposed to its fair market value, is a valid measure of damages for conversion, plaintiff failed to prove the damages resulting from the conversion and, consequently, was entitled to only nominal damages for the conversion. (3) Because plaintiff makes no reasoned argument, supported by relevant authorities, regarding its claim of tortious interference with business relationships, plaintiff has forfeited the issue of whether the circuit court erred by finding against plaintiff on that claim. (4) As plaintiff elected to treat defendant as a holdover tenant, there was a new lease for the original one-year term, subject, however, to the other provisions in the original lease agreement, including the provision that the lease would continue beyond the original term, year by year, for five consecutive years, absent a 30-day written notice of termination. ¶2 In the Adams County circuit court, plaintiff, Michelmann Steel Corporation (Michelmann), sued defendant, Link Media Midwest, LLC (Link Media), for conversion, tortious interference with business relationships, and breach of contract—counts I, II, and III of the complaint, respectively. At the conclusion of a bench trial, in which only documentary evidence was presented, the court found in Michelmann’s favor on count III but found in Link Media’s favor on the remaining two counts. Link Media appeals, and Michelmann cross-appeals. ¶3 In our de novo review, we agree with the circuit court’s judgment, except for the finding against Michelmann on count I. Michelmann proved conversion. Nevertheless, because Michelmann failed to prove the fair market value of the converted property, it is entitled to only nominal damages on count I. ¶4 Therefore, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment in part, reverse it in part, and remand this case with directions. We reverse the judgment insomuch as the court found in favor of Link Media and against Michelmann on count I. We remand this case with directions to enter judgment in favor of Michelmann and against Link Media on count I and to award nominal damages to Michelmann for conversion. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment. ¶5 I. BACKGROUND ¶6 A. The Complaint and the Answer ¶7 In count I of its complaint, Michelmann alleged that on April 19, 2019, Link Media, the assignee of Michelmann’s previous lessee, Outdoor Graphics, Inc. (Outdoor Graphics), “dismantled and removed” the “Billboard Structures” on the premises—a lot on 24th Street in Quincy, Illinois (the lot)—and thereby converted the “Billboard Structures.” In its answer to count I, Link Media admitted that Outdoor Graphics had assigned its interest in the -2- lease to Link Media and that on April 19, 2019, Link Media had the “Billboard Structures” removed from the lot. Link Media denied, however, that the “Billboard Structures” belonged to Michelmann and, hence, that the removal of them was a conversion. ¶8 Count II of the complaint was an action against Link Media for tortious interference with prospective business relationships. In that count, Michelmann alleged it had “possessed a reasonable expectation of entering valid business relationships in regards to the Billboard Structures” and that, “[b]y willfully and maliciously removing the Billboard Structures from Michelmann’s property,” Link Media had “intentionally acted in such a manner so as to disrupt, destroy[,] and interfere with” Michelmann’s “prospective business opportunities” to rent the “Billboard Structures” to “prospective customers.” Because Link Media disputed Michelmann’s ownership of the “Billboard Structures,” Link Media disputed it had committed this tort as well. ¶9 The remaining count of Michelmann’s complaint, count III, was an action against Link Media for breach of contract in that Link Media allegedly had breached the lease agreement by failing to pay rent to Michelmann in return for its permission to engage in billboard advertising on the lot. In its answer to count III, Link Media admitted that, “at one point in time, Link Media’s predecessors in interest agreed to pay Michelmann [$400] per year for the lease of land beginning on May 1, 1987[,] with annual increases in rent in the amount of [10%]”, but Link Media denied it had defaulted on that obligation to pay rent. ¶ 10 B. Evidence at the Bench Trial ¶ 11 1. Lease Agreements ¶ 12 There was a bench trial, and the parties tried the case solely on written submissions. The documentary evidence was essentially as follows, beginning with a series of -3- lease agreements between Michelmann and various lessees. ¶ 13 On May 8, 1956, for $50 a year, Michelmann granted to Quincy Outdoor Advertising Co. (Quincy Outdoor) “sole and exclusive permission” to “build and maintain two Standard Poster Panels to be used for advertising” on the lot. This lease agreement was to “hold good” until Michelmann sold the lot or erected a permanent building on it, “in which event thirty days[’] notice, in writing,” was to be given to Quincy Outdoor. However, Quincy Outdoor might terminate the lease “at any time” by giving Michelmann 30 days’ written notice. Michelmann agreed that, upon the lease’s being “terminated at any time,” it would “refund all monies advanced, pro rata, for the unexpired part of the current year” and would allow “the removal of all boards, etc., the property of” Quincy Outdoor. ¶ 14 In a request for admission pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216 (eff. July 1, 2014), Michelmann requested that Link Media admit that Link Media did “not know when the billboard structures, formerly located on the Premises and removed by Link [Media] in 2019, were erected.” Link Media answered, “Deny. The original billboard would have been constructed after May 8, 1956[,] and before July 8, 1968, according to the leases.” ¶ 15 The next lease in the record was to Busby Outdoor, Inc. (Busby). On July 8, 1968, Michelmann and Busby agreed that, for $80 a year, Michelmann would lease to Busby “space for two (2) standard poster panels” on the lot. This lease was to be for an original term of one year, but there was an automatic renewal provision. “After the original term hereof,” the lease agreement provided, “this lease shall continue in force from year to year for a period of five (5) consecutive years unless terminated at the end of the original term, or any additional year thereafter, upon written notice of termination to [Michelmann] by -4- [Busby], served not less than thirty (30) days before the end of such term or additional year.” As long as Busby was its tenant, Michelmann “guarantee[d] to [Busby] free access to and use of any part of any structure on said premises as may be necessary for [Busby] to hang scaffolds, or construct, post, paint, illuminate, repair or remove its advertisements and structures.” The parties further agreed that “[a]ll structures, materials[,] and equipment placed upon said premises by [Busby] shall always remain [Busby’s] personal property and may be removed by [Busby] at any time up to a reasonable time after the termination of this lease.” ¶ 16 On March 31, 1969, Busby again leased from Michelmann “space for two (2) standard postal panels” on the lot. The parties used the same preprinted lease agreement as before, including the provision regarding automatic renewal, year by year, for five consecutive years, absent service of a 30-day written notice of termination upon Michelmann. The lease agreement also included the same guarantee of Busby’s right to remove structures, materials, and equipment within a reasonable time after termination of the lease. ¶ 17 On May 8, 1970, Michelmann leased to Mid-States Communications (Quincy), Inc. (Mid-States), “space for two (2) standard poster panels” on the lot, using the same preprinted fill-in-the-blank lease agreement as in Busby’s lease. ¶ 18 On May 8, 1971, Michelmann again leased to Mid-States “space for two (2) standard poster panels” on the lot, again reusing the same preprinted lease agreement. ¶ 19 On May 6, 1981, Michelmann leased to Outdoor Graphics, for an original term of one year, “the existing structures” on the lot. Again, there were to be year-by-year automatic renewals for five consecutive years, which could be cut off by a 30-day written notice of termination “to [Michelmann] by [Outdoor Graphics] or”—and here was something new—“to -5- [Outdoor Graphics] by [Michelmann].” Outdoor Graphics had the same right as before to place structures, materials, and equipment on the lot and to remove the structures, materials, and equipment within a reasonable time after termination of the lease. ¶ 20 On May 1, 1987, Michelmann again leased to Outdoor Graphics, “for an original term of 1 year,” beginning on that date, “the existing structures” on the lot. Because this lease agreement is the one that Michelmann sued Link Media for breaching as an assignee of Outdoor Graphics, we will quote its germane provisions at somewhat greater length: “After the original term hereof this lease shall continue in force from year to year for a period of five (5) consecutive years unless terminated at the end of the or[i]ginal term, or any additional year thereafter upon written notice of termination to [Michelmann] by [Outdoor Graphics] or to [Outdoor Graphics] by [Michelmann], served not less than thirty (30) days before the end of such term or additional year. *** [Michelmann] will not permit [Outdoor Graphics’s] signs to be obstructed. [Michelmann] guarantees to [Outdoor Graphics] free access to and use of any part of any structure on said premises as may be necessary for [Outdoor Graphics] to hang scaffolds, or construct, post, paint, illuminate, repair, or remove its advertisements and structures. All structures, material[,] and equipment placed upon said premises by [Outdoor Graphics] shall always remain [Outdoor Graphics’s] personal property and may be removed by [Outdoor Graphics] at any time up to a reasonable time after the termination of this lease. *** -6- Neither [Outdoor Graphics] nor [Michelmann] is bound by any stipulation, representation[,] or agreement not printed or written in this lease. This lease shall inure to and be binding on the personal representatives, successors[,] and assigns of the parties hereto.” ¶ 21 2. Depositions ¶ 22 Michelmann took the discovery deposition of a representative individual from Link Media, Evie Conrad, and Link Media took the discovery deposition of a representative individual from Michelmann, Laura Ehrhart. The parties stipulated to the admission of these two discovery depositions. ¶ 23 a. Conrad ¶ 24 Conrad testified she was the “general manager of the Link Midwest Illinois/southeast Iowa market.” She and Michelmann’s attorney had the following discussion regarding succession of ownership: “Q. Do you know if Busby *** became Outdoor Graphics or if they were separate? Do you have any idea? A. [W]hen Don Brown created Outdoor Graphics, he did it by putting together several smaller companies, and I believe [Mid-States] was the last version of this particular location before it became Outdoor Graphics. It started as Quincy Outdoor *** and then that divested its assets to Busby *** who divested it to [Mid-States] who divested to Outdoor Graphics, then to Key Outdoors, and then to Link Media.” According to Conrad’s testimony, then, there was an assignee in between Outdoor Graphics and Link Media: Outdoor Graphics assigned its interest to Key Outdoors, which later assigned its -7- interest to Link Media. (In its answer, by contrast, Link Media agreed it was the assignee of Outdoor Graphics.) The dialogue continued: “Q. *** [E]ach company has been acquired all the way down to Link [Media]? A. Yes. Q. And are you basing that on conversations with Mr. Brown or how do you know that? A. I am basing that on the historic lease file that was housed in my office in Quincy, and I have copies of all of those leases.” ¶ 25 Conrad testified she did not understand how Michelmann had come to the conclusion that it “owned the structure.” Not only was that conclusion at odds with correspondence in which Michelmann proposed buying the billboards from Link Media, but it was at odds with Conrad’s understanding that the billboards had been passed along, via successive assignments, from the billboard company that originally built them to Link Media. She testified: “The billboard company built it, and every lease after that transferred the ownership of the structure, the assets, to the next billboard company. And I know that there is a lease where it goes to Outdoor Graphics where it says existing structure, but that does not mean that any ownership of the unit was ever transferred to Michelmann. That means that the structure was existing, not one being built.” In other words, when the lease agreement of May 1, 1987, between Michelmann and Outdoor Graphics stated that “Michelmann *** AS Lessor hereby leases to OUTDOOR GRAPHICS ***, -8- Lessee the existing structures” on the lot, Conrad did not understand that language as meaning that Michelmann owned the “existing structures” on the lot. Rather, she understood it as meaning merely that some structures already existed on the lot, as distinct from structures that Outdoor Graphics might build. ¶ 26 In Conrad’s view, the billboards belonged to the billboard company because that was how the business of billboard advertising typically worked—a contrary state of affairs would have been implausible to her. Billboard companies preferred to build their own billboards, Conrad explained, so that, if need be, they could remove unprofitable billboards as their own property instead of leaving them behind for competitors to use. ¶ 27 The billboards on the lot had proved unprofitable to Link Media. They generated only $2,456 a year in revenue, compared to the “lease amount of $2,960” plus a 10% increase in rent per year. “So, without any expense of posting repair, electrical, anything else that went along with it, we were already at negative $504 to keep this board standing,” she testified. “That’s what would have precipitated a takedown.” ¶ 28 Michelmann’s attorney asked Conrad if she knew the value of the billboards that Link Media had taken down. She answered that she was unable to provide any such estimate. “You are asking for the actual physical asset?” Conrad asked. “Correct,” Michelmann’s attorney responded, “I am asking about the billboard structure, *** what you would ask for it.” Conrad mused: “Well, we replaced two months of faces on it and the physical cost of the faces was about $6,000 and it was four I-beams and two catwalks beyond that. So, if we are talking about the nuts and bolts physical cost of the billboard, my guess would be that [$15,000] would be a bit low.” -9- Rather, Conrad’s “best guess” was that “that four I-beams, two faces, two sets of brains, two lights and two catwalks would be in that 20-ish thousand dollar range for just those pieces of used equipment at that point in time.” ¶ 29 After Link Media made those additions to the billboards, it decided to “tear down the billboard structure.” If the billboards had been “a performing asset,” Link Media “would have renewed the lease,” but they were not “a performing asset,” so “[y]ou end the lease” and “remove” the structure to avoid “creat[ing] competition for yourself.” ¶ 30 Michelmann’s attorney asked Conrad if Link Media had “sen[t] any correspondence to Michelmann stating that they were terminating the lease or ending the lease or getting out of the lease.” Conrad answered that she possessed a copy of correspondence dated April 16, 2019, addressed from Michele Dennis to Michelmann, and reading, “ ‘This letter is to inform you that we are terminating our lease agreement effective May 6, 2019, due to the poor performance of the sign and the decline in value for advertising ***. We will be removing it.’ ” Conrad did not know, however, if that letter was sent to Michelmann. In fact, the copy that Conrad possessed was “a deleted file”—it had been retrieved from “the electronic trash.” ¶ 31 b. Ehrhart ¶ 32 Ehrhart, the president of Michelmann, testified that the company had existed since 1865 and that she joined it 1991 as vice president when her father, William F. Gerdes III, was the president. Gerdes had been the company officer “interfacing with the billboard companies.” Between 1991 and 2009, Ehrhart had no interaction with the billboard companies, and she assumed it was Gerdes who interacted with them during those years. He left the company in 2009. The first time that Ehrhart ever had a conversation with a billboard company “[o]n this particular location” was when Link Media “contacted [Michelmann] wanting to renegotiate their - 10 - rent.” ¶ 33 Correspondence between Michelmann and Link Media ensued. On November 13, 2018, Ehrhart sent Conrad a Facebook message asking her, “Do you still work for the outfit that owns the billboards on my property on North 24th Street?” When asked, in her deposition, why she had “identif[ied] Link [Media] as the company that own[ed] the billboards,” Ehrhart answered that she “didn’t have knowledge of the leases and things at that time” and that she lacked “a good understanding” at that time “of who owned the billboards.” ¶ 34 Later, in her correspondence with Link Media—specifically, in an e-mail to its real estate manager, Dennis—Ehrhart passed along an observation by Michelmann’s attorneys that Link Media’s ownership of the billboards was undocumented. Michelmann’s attorneys had pointed out to Ehrhart (and she in turn pointed out to Dennis) that “Link [Media] ha[d] not been able to document that it owns the structure so Michelmann offering any money for it is a generous concession.” (Emphasis in original.) Michelmann did not want the billboards to be removed from the lot “now or in the future,” Ehrhart wrote to Dennis, and to settle the controversy over ownership of the billboards, Michelmann was willing to pay Link Media “a relatively nominal amount,” as well as “conceding 2/3 of the previous rent under the new proposed lease.” Ehrhart cautioned that if the parties could not agree on a new lease, the 1987 lease would “renew[ ] automatically,” whereupon they could “address ownership at a later date.” “If the parties cannot agree to a new lease, the 1987 lease will control the next lease year”—an outcome that, Ehrhart suggested, would not be in the best interests of either party. ¶ 35 As it turned out, the parties never reached an agreement on a new lease, and on April 19, 2019, Link Media took apart the billboards and removed them from the lot. Ehrhart testified that Michelmann had built new billboards on the lot to replace the ones that Link Media - 11 - had taken and that Michelmann was using one of the new billboards and was renting the other one to Kohl Wholesale. ¶ 36 3. Ehrhart’s Affidavit in Support of Michelmann’s Trial Brief ¶ 37 In an affidavit dated February 2, 2023, which was admitted as plaintiff’s exhibit Q, Ehrhart averred that, as president of Michelmann, she was familiar with its business records, including the lease of “billboard structures to Link Media *** and previous lessees.” According to Ehrhart, the lease agreement of 1987, “to which Link Media assert[ed] it [was the assignee of] Outdoor Graphics,” was “not a continuation or amendment of any previous lease agreement involving the Billboard Structures” but, rather, was “a stand-alone lease agreement that totally supersede[d] any previous lease agreement for the Billboard Structures.” ¶ 38 Ehrhart was “not aware of any previous lessee under the Lease Agreement ever assert[ed] that it owned the Billlboard Structures.” In fact, on March 21, 2005, in a letter that Ehrhart attached to her affidavit, Gerdes wrote to Outdoor Graphics, “You are renting (2) billboards from us on north 24th near the railroad tracks.” Ehrhart saw no indication in the company records that Outdoor Graphics had contested that statement. Ehrhart remarked in her affidavit, “I was shocked to learn Link Media had removed the Billboard Structures because I believed that both parties were still negotiating the terms of a new billboard lease in good faith.” Link Media “never served written notice of termination of the Agreement to Michelmannand “never threatened to remove the Billboard Structures or stated its intention to remove the Billboard Structures” ¶ 39 After Link Media removed the billboards, Ehrhart continued in her affidavit, Michelmann “sought permission from the City of Quincy to re-erect similar billboard structures on the Premises.” The city council “ultimately approved Michelmann’s request and passed a - 12 - special ordinance allowing Michelmann permission to re-erect similar billboard structures on the Premises, but with an additional ten (10) foot setback from the road.” According to Ehrhart, “Michelmann was unable to rent the Billboard Structures to advertisers from April 2019 (when Link Media dismantled and removed the Billboard Structures) to September 2021 (when the replacement billboard structures were completed).” She stated that building new billboards on the lot cost a total of $68,931.17. She itemized the charges of various contractors and vendors and attached their invoices to her affidavit. Also, on the basis of her “knowledge and experience in leasing the billboard structures on behalf of Michelmann,” Ehrhart “estimate[d] the replacement billboards to be worth at least ten percent (10%) less than the previously existing Billboard Structures due to the additional ten (10) foot setback from the road.” ¶ 40 In addition to those asserted tort damages, there were damages for breach of contract. By Ehrhart’s calculation, Link Media owed Michelmann the following amounts of rent: $2,960.10 for May 2018 to April 2019; $3,256.11 for May 2019 to April 2020; $3,581.72 for May 20[20] to April 2021; $3,939.89 for May 2021 to April 2022; and $4,333.88 for May 2022 to April 2023, for a total of $15,140.70. ¶ 41 C. The Circuit Court’s Decision ¶ 42 On December 18, 2024, the circuit court found that Michelmann had “failed to sustain its burden of [proof] that it was the rightful owner of the billboards in question.” Therefore, the court found in Link Media’s favor and against Michelmann on counts I and II of the complaint, which alleged conversion and tortious interference with prospective business relationships. On count III, however, which was the action for breach of contract, the court found in Michelmann’s favor and against Link Media because Link Media had “failed to present any proof of written termination of the Agreement.” The court awarded Michelmann a total of - 13 - $19,907.97 in past-due rent. “This amount,” the court explained, “is set forth in plaintiff’s exhibit Q $15,140.70 plus $4,767.27 for rent due May 2023-April 2024.” ¶ 43 On January 17, 2025, within 30 days after the circuit court’s decision (see 735 ILCS 5/2-1203(a) (West 2024)), Link Media filed a postjudgment motion, in which it argued that, after the 1987 lease expired at the end of the five-year period of automatic renewals, there was merely a month-to-month lease agreement between Michelmann and Link Media. Because “the award of rent tantamount to several years would not have been commensurate with the parties[’] status as a month-to-month lease,” Link Media requested that the circuit court modify its damage award on count III to only two months of rent. ¶ 44 Also on January 17, 2025, Michelmann filed a postjudgment motion. Michelmann requested that the circuit court “modify its judgment to find that Michelmann owned the billboard structures and award Michelmann damages as set forth in its Trial Brief.” ¶ 45 On October 23, 2025, the circuit court denied the postjudgment motions. ¶ 46 On November 21, 2025, within 30 days after denial of the postjudgment motions, Link Media filed its notice of appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) (eff. July 1, 2017). ¶ 47 On December 1, 2025, within 10 days after Link Media’s service of its notice of appeal upon Michelmann, Michelmann filed its notice of cross-appeal. See Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(3) (eff. July 1, 2017). ¶ 48 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 49 A. Our Standard of Review ¶ 50 The parties suggest we should be deferential toward the circuit court’s findings of fact, but the authorities they cite in support of the proposed deference are distinguishable. They cite Chicago’s Pizza, Inc. v. Chicago’s Pizza Franchise Ltd. USA, 384 Ill. App. 3d 849, 859 - 14 - (2008), but seemingly overlook that there was live testimony at the bench trial in that case (see id. at 852-59). Additionally, Link Media cites New Randolph Halsted Currency Exchange, Inc. v. Regent Title Insurance Agency, LLC, 405 Ill. App. 3d 923, 928 (2010), in which there likewise was live testimony at the bench trial (see id. at 926-927). ¶ 51 At the bench trial in the present case, there was no live testimony. Instead, the parties requested that the court decide the case solely on written submissions. Since there was no occasion for the court to judge the truthfulness of the witnesses from their demeanors or to detect shades of meaning or significance in the way they spoke, the court was in no better position than we are to resolve the factual issues in this case. Because we are as well-positioned as the court was to read the cold print of the record, there would be no reason for us to be deferential toward the court’s findings of fact. Our standard of review, then, is de novo. See Addison Insurance Co. v. Fay, 232 Ill. 2d 446, 453 (2009). ¶ 52 B. Breach of Contract (Link Media’s Appeal) ¶ 53 1. Review of the Merits Despite the Lack of an Argument by Michelmann ¶ 54 The circuit court awarded Michelmann a total of $19,907.97 in overdue rent: $15,140.70 for the period of May 2018 to April 2023 plus $4,767.27 for the period of May 2023 to April 2024. Link Media appeals, contesting that amount. While agreeing it owes Michelmann rent, Link Media disagrees that the amount it owes is as high as $19,907.97. Link Media maintains that by removing the billboards from the lot on April 19, 2019, it surrendered possession of the premises and that, consequently, its liability for rent ended on April 30, 2019, making it indebted to Michelmann for only $2,960.10 in rent for the period of May 1, 2018, to April 30, 2019. ¶ 55 In its brief, Michelmann offers no response to that argument by Link Media. - 15 - Therefore, in its reply brief, Link Media claims that Michelmann has effectively conceded the correctness of its challenge to the award of $19,907.97. Link Media points out that, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 343(b)(1) (eff. July 1, 2008), the “cross-appellant”—in this case, Michelmann—is supposed to “file a single brief” not only as “cross-appellant” but also “as appellee,” meaning that the cross-appellant’s brief should meet the appellant’s arguments and not just argue in support of the cross-appeal. ¶ 56 Link Media acknowledges that, under First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp., 63 Ill. 2d 128, 131 (1976), the lack of an appellee’s brief (and, by corollary, the lack of a responsive argument in the appellee’s brief) should not “result in an automatic reversal of the circuit court’s judgment assessing rent against Link Media.” However, Link Media focuses on a passage of Talandis in which the supreme court seemed to suggest that, absent an appellee’s brief, the reviewing court “should decide the merits of the appeal” only if the record was simple and the case was easy. Id. at 133. In the passage in question, the supreme court said, “[I]t seems that if the record is simple and the claimed errors are such that the court can easily decide them without the aid of an appellee’s brief, the court of review should decide the merits of the appeal.” Id. Link Media asserts that “[t]he record in this case is far from simple.” ¶ 57 We do not find the record to be dauntingly complex. With respect to the issue of how much rent Link Media owes Michelmann, the record is rather simple. As to that issue, all we need to glean from the record is (1) the lease agreement of May 1, 1987, between Michelmann and Outdoor Graphics; (2) the lack of a written notice of termination; and (3) Link Media’s admissions that (a) Outdoor Graphics assigned its interest in the lease to Link Media, (b) Link Media remained in possession of the premises until April 19, 2019; and (c) Link Media - 16 - paid no rent from May 1, 2018, onward. (Conrad testified that Outdoor Graphics divested its assets to Key Outdoor and that Key Outdoor in turn divested its assets to Link Media. This discrepancy typifies the vagueness of the successor of ownership theory and its lack of evidentiary rigor. The supposed chain of assignments was not proven by the presentation of purchase agreements from Quincy Outdoor all the way down to Link Media.) ¶ 58 In any event, regardless of how complicated the record is, Link Media appears to agree that the omission in Michelmann’s brief does not absolve Link Media of its own responsibility, as an appellant, to make a prima facie case for reversal. The supreme court made it clear in Talandis that the appellate court may never—automatically or otherwise—reverse the circuit court’s judgment on the ground that the appellee failed to file a brief. Id. at 131. The supreme court held, “[T]he judgment of a trial court should not be reversed Pro forma for the appellee’s failure to file its brief as required by rule. A considered judgment of the trial court should not be set aside without some consideration of the merits of the appeal.” Id. It follows that, notwithstanding the appellee’s silence, the appellant should prevail only if the appellant makes “a prima facie showing of reversible error” (id. at 132), a showing supported by relevant authorities and, wherever evidentiary support is needed, by citations to the relevant pages of the record (see Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020)). ¶ 59 2. A Holdover Tenancy With Link Media as the Tenant ¶ 60 The lease agreement of May 1, 1987, between Michelmann as “Lessor” and Outdoor Graphics as “Lessee” provided as follows: “After the original term hereof this lease shall continue in force from year to year for a period of five (5) consecutive years unless terminated at the end of the or[i]ginal term, or any additional year thereafter upon written notice of - 17 - termination to Lessor by Lessee or to Lessee by Lessor, served not less than thirty (30) days before the end of such term or additional year.” ¶ 61 The “original term” was defined as “1 year beginning May 1[,] 1987. Thus, the original term was May 1, 1987, to May 1, 1988, “excluding the first day and including the last.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 1, ¶ 1012; McMahon v. Chicago Mercantile Exchange, 221 Ill. App. 3d 935, 945 (1991) (“The time computation statute is [a] law that could be construed as an implication of a contract.”). After the original term (which is to say, after May 1, 1988), the lease would continue year to year for an additional five consecutive years—May 1, 1988, to May 1, 1989; May 1, 1989, to May 1, 1990; May 1, 1990, to May 1, 1991; May 1, 1991, to May 1, 1992; and May 1, 1992, to May 1, 1993—unless it were terminated at the end of the original term or at the end of any additional year thereafter by a written notice served on the other party no later than 30 days before the end of the original term or additional year. The duration of the lease, then, was one year at the least (the original term) and six years at the most (the original term plus five consecutive years). The longest the lease could last, under the explicit terms of the lease agreement, was until May 1, 1993. ¶ 62 The circuit court held that because no written notice of termination was ever served on Michelmann, the lease continued beyond May 1, 1993 (despite the explicit terms of the lease agreement) and that Link Media was obligated to pay rent for the period of May 2018 through April 2024. ¶ 63 Link Media maintains, however, that the requirement of serving a written notice of termination ended when the lease expired on April 30, 1993 (or May 1, 1993, according to the time computation statute). As Link Media puts it, “[t]here is no provision in the Lease setting forth the parties’ obligations after the end of the five-year, year to year term, when the lease was - 18 - not terminated.” ¶ 64 By Link Media’s reasoning, “Outdoor Graphics *** and its successors[,] including Link Media, remained in possession of the leasehold after the lease expired[,] and Link Media became a tenant at sufferance.” “[A] tenant who remains in possession after the expiration of his lease becomes a tenant at sufferance” (Ventus Holdings, LLC v. Raddle, 2025 IL App (1st) 241169, ¶ 16), and it is up to the landlord whether to evict the tenant at sufferance as a trespasser or to accept the tenant at sufferance as a holdover tenant (A.O. Smith Corp. v. Kaufman Grain Co., 231 Ill. App. 3d 390, 398 (1992)). “A holdover tenancy is created when a landlord elects to treat a tenant, after the expiration of his lease, as [a] tenant for another term upon the same provisions contained in the original lease.” Id. “A holdover tenancy will last as long as the original lease term.” Id. at 399. The landlord’s acceptance of rent after the expiration of the lease “may by itself indicate the landlord’s election to treat the tenant as a holdover.” Id. at 398. ¶ 65 From those principles of case law, Link Media reasons that, from May 1, 1993, to April 30, 2018, “there [was] a series of 24 consecutive one-year holdover tenancies,” since Michelmann was paid rent and accepted rent during that 24-year period. Link Media continues, however: “Link Media did not pay, and Michelmann did not accept, rent in 2018 [citations]. Therefore, a new one-year holdover tenancy was not created for the would[-]be May 1, 2018, to April 30, 2019, lease period. As a result, the last one- year holdover tenancy ended on April 30, 2018, and Link Media was no longer leasing the premises. [Citation.] Instead, Link Media became a tenant at sufferance on May 1, 2018. Link media surrendered its tenancy at sufferance on April 19, 2019, when it removed its billboard structures from the premises and - 19 - left the property at Michelmann’s disposa