McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Default Judgment and Order for Possession

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: McGivern v. Hadley, No. 2025-M1-707919 (Circuit Court of Cook County, Municipal Division) · Judge: Brian R. Porter, later Kelly Marie McCarthy
Filed: July 22, 2025 · Decided: September 16, 2025

Ruling

Granted September 16, 2025: “Defendants Motion to Vacate Default Eviction Order of July 21, 2025 is GRANTED as it was timely filed.” To vacate is to set aside an order. The same order set use and occupancy payments, that is, payments for continued occupancy that the order states are not an admission of tenancy, at $2,080 on the first of each month, required $1,040 for August and $2,080 for September within 14 days, and stayed, or paused, the matter pending the outcome of case 2025-CH-05527.

The Motion (Defendant Kyle Hadley, July 22, 2025)

Requested vacatur of the July 21 default judgment, a judgment entered when one side does not appear, along with the order for possession, confirmation that the trial setting was struck on June 26, and re-calendaring only after the Chancery case concluded. Argued that the court struck all dates orally on June 26 and stated the Chancery action would take precedence, that the written order omitted that language, and that counsel notified chambers and opposing counsel. Argued the judgment rested on a misrepresentation of the case posture and that courts retain inherent authority to vacate.

The Response (Plaintiff Brandon McGivern, pro se, July 24, 2025)

Argued that written orders control over asserted oral statements and that the June 26 written order contained no striking language. Argued Hadley had not shown excusable neglect, a meritorious defense, or due diligence under 735 ILCS 5/2-1301. Asserted that Hadley’s counsel submitted both competing proposed orders. Requested denial and sanctions under Rule 137, or conditions if vacatur were granted.

The Reply (Defendant Kyle Hadley, July 30, 2025)

Argued an oral pronouncement controls over an inconsistent written order, that the motion was filed within 72 hours of learning of the default, and that the pending ownership claim in Chancery is a meritorious defense warranting relief under Section 2-1301(e).

The Court Order (McCarthy, September 16, 2025)

The order states the motion was timely filed. It contains no further findings on the motion.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents