McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

Repository of public court documents from Cook County cases 20251707919 and 2025CH05527

Prove-Up on Counterclaims and Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the Prove-Up Memorandum

AI-generated summary. This entry was produced by an AI system from the court documents linked below. It reports what each party argued and what the court decided; it does not evaluate either. It is not legal advice and does not reflect the site owner’s opinion. The linked documents are the authoritative record.

Case: Hadley v. McGivern, No. 2025-CH-05527 (Cook County, Chancery Division) · Judge: Eve M. Reilly
Documents span: January 21, 2026 to August 18, 2026

Overview

This set covers two related matters. The first is Hadley’s motion to strike the memorandum McGivern filed in support of a prove-up on his counterclaims, meaning the proceeding that fixes the dollar amount of damages after liability has already been settled by a default. The second is the prove-up itself, which the court resolved by final judgment on August 18, 2026.

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Pro Se Prove-Up Memorandum and for Entry of a Prove-Up Hearing

Filed: January 27, 2026 · Decided: March 24, 2026

Ruling

Granted in part on March 24, 2026. The court found that “an affidavit is needed,” gave McGivern leave to amend his prove-up memorandum to attach one by March 30, 2026, and gave Hadley 14 days, to April 13, 2026, to respond.

The Motion (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, January 27, 2026)

Hadley moved to strike McGivern’s prove-up memorandum and to set an evidentiary prove-up hearing. He argued the memorandum contained no affidavit or sworn testimony and consisted of unsworn argument. He argued that Illinois law requires unliquidated damages, meaning amounts that are not fixed or readily calculable, to be established by competent evidence. He argued that taking the memorandum under advisement without a hearing left him no opportunity to contest the amounts sought.

The Response (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, March 1, 2026)

McGivern argued that Hadley appeared at the January 26 prove-up and raised no objection to it, forfeiting the objection. He argued the memorandum’s eleven documentary exhibits made out a prima facie case under the court’s standing order, which he stated permits affidavits in place of live testimony. He argued liability was already fixed by the default and by the 30 requests for admission deemed admitted on September 29, 2025. In the alternative, he attached a sworn affidavit attesting to the damages figures.

The Reply (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, March 3, 2026)

Hadley stated he was not seeking to vacate or disturb the entry of default. He argued that a default admits well-pleaded liability allegations but not the amount of unliquidated damages, and that waiver cannot substitute for proof of those damages.

The Court Order (Judge Reilly, March 24, 2026)

The court found Hadley answered the counterclaim over 100 days late, never moved to vacate the default under 735 ILCS 5/2-1301, and did not object at the prove-up on the date it was set. The court found that although the counterclaims are verified and deemed admitted and there are also facts deemed admitted, “none of these establish the exact dollar amount due and owing the defendant.”

2. The Prove-up on the Counterclaims

Amended Memorandum Filed: March 30, 2026 · Decided: August 18, 2026

The Amended Memorandum (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, March 30, 2026)

McGivern incorporated his January 21, 2026 memorandum and Exhibits A through K and added three exhibits: his own affidavit, a comparable market analysis prepared by broker Tracy Boyce with supporting listing sheets, and Boyce’s declaration. He sought $1,195.00 on Count I (waste and property damage), $43,430.00 on Count II (unjust enrichment), and $5,000.00 on Count III (conversion and professional misconduct), a total of $49,625.00, up from the $45,667.00 sought in January. He stated the increase reflected only continued accrual of two existing categories, and he requested statutory interest, access to inspect his furnishings, and leave to supplement.

The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, April 13, 2026)

Hadley argued the claimed damages are unliquidated and fact-intensive and cannot be resolved on a one-sided affidavit. He argued a comparative market analysis is not sworn expert testimony and does not establish fair rental value, and that the below-market rent theory assumes a landlord-tenant relationship he disputes. He argued the damages issues overlap with his own pending claims and that an evidentiary hearing with cross-examination is required. He attached his own affidavit stating that his payments were made toward a purchase of the property, that he made improvements in reliance on that agreement, and that he denies causing damage or retaining income improperly.

The Court Order (Judge Reilly, August 18, 2026)

The court stated that on September 29, 2025 Hadley’s counsel admitted in open court that he did not respond to McGivern’s requests to admit and instead drafted a new set and answered those, and that the court deemed facts admitted as a sanction for the fabrication. The court found that default was entered on the counterclaims on December 22, 2025 and that Hadley never moved to vacate it, and that the default and the admissions entitle McGivern to judgment on the counterclaims he proved up. On damages, the court found McGivern proved $1,195 on Count I for out-of-pocket water damage costs, and on Count II proved $17,450 in rent Hadley received from third parties and $23,580 in rent payments below fair market value. The court found McGivern had not proven the fair market value of the discarded appliances on Count III, had not proven the holdover damages claimed on Count IV, and, not being an attorney, had not proven entitlement to attorney’s fees on Count V, though it awarded $1,300 in costs on that count.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents