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
Filed: September 30, 2025 · Decided: December 22, 2025
Ruling
The court denied the motion on December 22, 2025, stating that “[e]ven in consideration of the admissions contained within Plaintiff’s Responses to the Request to Admit, there remains a question of material fact as to whether there was partial performance of the oral agreement by Plaintiff as an exception to the Statute of Frauds.”
The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, September 30, 2025)
McGivern moved under 735 ILCS 5/2-615(e) for judgment on the pleadings, a ruling that the parties’ written filings alone decide the case without a trial. He requested dismissal with prejudice (barring the claims from being refiled), a finding that he is the sole owner of the property, and costs and fees. He argued that thirty requests for admission (written statements one party asks another to admit or deny, treated as established if not answered in time) deemed admitted on September 29, 2025 established that Hadley is a licensed real estate agent who knows oral real estate purchase agreements are void and has no written agreement. He argued that the Statute of Frauds, 740 ILCS 80/2, which requires contracts for the sale of land to be in writing, bars each count.
The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, October 3, 2025)
Hadley argued that judgment on the pleadings is available only where no material fact issue exists, and that the deemed admissions do not resolve disputes over possession, payments, and improvements. He asserted part performance, an exception allowing enforcement of an unwritten land agreement where a party has acted on it, citing possession, $30,000 in payments, and over $9,000 in improvements. He argued that unjust enrichment (recovery of a benefit unfairly retained) and constructive trust (a court-imposed remedy treating a holder of property as holding it for another) remain available.
The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, October 14, 2025)
McGivern argued that a licensed real estate professional cannot reasonably rely on an agreement he knows is void, so part performance does not apply. He argued that the admissions establish repudiation, a statement rejecting an agreement before performance is due.
The Court Order (Judge Reilly, December 22, 2025)
The court also dismissed sua sponte (on its own initiative, without a party asking) and with prejudice Counts III and IV of the complaint and Counts IV and V of the counterclaim, finding they state remedies rather than valid causes of action.
Documents
- Defendant’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, September 30, 2025
- Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition, October 3, 2025
- Defendant’s Reply in Support, October 14, 2025
- Court Order, December 22, 2025