McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Full Case Overview: Hadley v. McGivern

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
Complaint filed: May 21, 2025 · Disposed: August 18, 2026

Disposition

On August 18, 2026, the court granted summary judgment for McGivern on both remaining counts of the complaint, entered judgment for McGivern on the counterclaims he had proven up, awarded $43,525, and disposed of the matter. Two earlier counts of the complaint had been dismissed with prejudice on December 22, 2025.

The Complaint (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, May 21, 2025)

Hadley, represented by Cole Sadkin LLC, alleged a 2022 verbal agreement to purchase 6122 N. Winthrop Avenue, Unit C, Chicago, for $320,000. He alleged he paid $30,000 toward the purchase and approximately $9,217.28 in improvements, including an air conditioning system and a washer and dryer, and that McGivern repudiated the agreement and issued a 60-day notice to vacate in March 2025. The complaint pleaded four counts: breach of oral contract, quantum meruit (a claim for the value of a benefit conferred where no enforceable contract exists), constructive trust (a court-imposed ownership interest to prevent unjust enrichment), and injunctive relief barring transfer of the property. Damages sought exceeded $39,000.

The Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, June 23, 2025)

McGivern denied the allegations and pleaded eight affirmative defenses, including the Statute of Frauds (an Illinois statute rendering oral real estate agreements void), fabricated evidence, unclean hands (a doctrine barring equitable relief to a party guilty of misconduct in the same transaction), first material breach, waiver, and abuse of process. He brought five counterclaims: waste and property damage of $15,000 to $30,000; unjust enrichment of $22,600 to $26,600 based on alleged subletting income and below-market payments; conversion and professional misconduct of $5,000 to $10,000; holdover tenancy damages at $166.67 per day; and fees and costs of $23,800.

Supporting Affidavit (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, sworn June 15, 2025, filed June 23, 2025)

McGivern stated under oath that he is the record titleholder, that he has no intention to sell the property, that he intends to hold it as a rental generating $2,800 to $3,200 per month, and that he has never listed it for sale.

Court Order on Sanctions and Admissions (Judge Reilly, September 29, 2025)

The court GRANTED McGivern’s motion to strike Exhibit B as fabricated evidence and for sanctions under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137, and GRANTED his motion under Rule 216 to deem admissions, ordering all thirty facts deemed admitted. Hadley’s motion to strike the affirmative defenses and McGivern’s motion to compel were taken under advisement, with an order to follow on September 30, 2025.

Amended affirmative defenses (Brandon McGivern, defendant, pro se, October 20, 2025)

Filed pursuant to the September 30, 2025 order, this pleading repleaded the stricken defenses and expanded them to twelve, adding failure of consideration, impossibility, frustration of purpose, no adequate remedy at law, violation of public policy, mutual rescission, and the binding effect of the admissions and affidavit.

Court Order on Five Motions (Judge Reilly, December 22, 2025)

The court DENIED McGivern’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that “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 court DISMISSED, on its own motion (sua sponte) 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. A further Rule 137 sanctions motion was DENIED on the ground that the court had already sanctioned by deeming facts admitted. The motion to compel was GRANTED in part, directing production of specified bank statements and legible Venmo statements by January 20, 2026, and DENIED in part as to Interrogatory #5. The motion to strike Hadley’s untimely answer to the counterclaims was GRANTED, default judgment on the counterclaims was GRANTED, and prove-up (a hearing at which a party proves damages after a default) was set for January 26, 2026.

Final Judgment Order (Judge Reilly, August 18, 2026)

The court noted that on September 29, 2025, Hadley’s counsel stated in open court that he did not respond to McGivern’s request to admit facts and instead drafted a new set of requests and answered those, and that the deeming of facts admitted was imposed as a sanction for the fabrication. The court noted that Hadley did not move to vacate the December 22, 2025 default. Summary judgment was GRANTED on Count I, the court finding that Hadley had admitted repudiating the purchase contract. Summary judgment was GRANTED on Count II, the court finding that the improvements were unauthorized, that working appliances were discarded, and that the unclean hands defense barred recovery, including the $30,000 in mortgage obligations, because Hadley lived at the property for below market rent while collecting rent from third parties. On the counterclaims, the court found McGivern proved $1,195 in out-of-pocket water damage costs, $17,450 in rent paid to Hadley by third parties, and $23,580 in rent payments below fair market value. The court found the fair market value of the discarded appliances was not proven, that the $166.67 daily holdover rate was not proven, and that McGivern is not an attorney and did not prove entitlement to attorney’s fees, but awarded $1,300 in costs. Total judgment: $43,525.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents