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: Kelly Marie McCarthy
Filed: August 21, 2025 · Decided: September 16, 2025
Ruling
On September 16, 2025, the court granted the motion and clarified its August 14, 2025 order. The order set use and occupancy (amounts a court may order an occupant to pay for continued possession while a case is pending, separate from rent under a lease) at “$2,080 on the first of each month,” stated that such payments “are not an admission of tenancy,” barred back payments from being applied as use and occupancy, and directed payment of $1,040 for August (post 8/14/25) and $2,080 for September within 14 days, with the next payment due October 1, 2025.
The Motion (Plaintiff Brandon McGivern, pro se, August 21, 2025)
McGivern asserted that the August 14 order granting use and occupancy contained no payment amounts or terms, and that counsel had not responded to a request to set terms. He asserted that fair market rent was $2,500 per month based on fourteen rental comparables, that no payment had been made in the seven days since the grant, and that $7,750 was owed for June 1 through September 3, 2025. He requested $2,500 monthly, payment of $7,750 within 48 hours, and an emergency hearing.
The Response (Defendant Kyle Hadley, September 9, 2025)
Hadley argued that the August 14 order was a narrow procedural safeguard permitting acceptance of payments without waiver, and that the motion sought to convert it into a rental obligation. He argued that use and occupancy awards are prospective rather than retroactive, and must be tied to reasonable value, citing Circle Management, LLC v. Olivier and other authority. He argued that he was not a tenant, that his payments were made toward a verbal purchase agreement at issue in the Chancery action, and that any terms should be deferred to that proceeding.
The Court Order (McCarthy, September 16, 2025)
The order states no findings beyond its rulings. It also granted Hadley’s motion to vacate the July 21, 2025 default judgment (a judgment entered against a party who did not appear) as timely filed, and stayed the matter pending the outcome of 25-CH-05527.
Documents
- Emergency Motion for Entry of Use & Occupancy Payment Terms, August 21, 2025
- Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Entry of Use & Occupancy Payment Terms, September 9, 2025
- Court Order, September 16, 2025