McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Defendant’s Motion to Strike Exhibit B as Fabricated Evidence and for Rule 137 Sanctions

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: June 2, 2025 · Decided: September 29, 2025

Ruling

The court granted the motion on September 29, 2025. The order states: “Defendant’s Motion to Strike Exhibit B As Fabricated Evidence and for Rule 137 Sanctions is GRANTED.”

The Motion (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, June 2, 2025)

McGivern requested that Exhibit B be stricken from the complaint, that sanctions be imposed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 137 (which allows penalties where a filing is not supported by reasonable inquiry into its factual basis), and that Counts II and III be dismissed or the damages reduced. He argued that the exhibit, an equity-tracking spreadsheet he created and shared, contained entries dated September 2024 through May 2025 that he did not make. He asserted that Google version and activity logs showed no edits between August 19, 2024 and February 14, 2025, and that Hadley’s access was revoked January 30, 2025. He also argued the purchase price shown was altered from $320,000 to $300,000, and that the exhibit lacked authentication, meaning proof that a document is what its proponent says it is.

The Response (Plaintiff Kyle Hadley, June 10, 2025)

Hadley requested denial. He argued the complaint alleged specific facts about a verbal purchase agreement, including monthly payments of $1,000 credited toward a $150,000 price, and years of payments toward mortgage, taxes, and maintenance. He argued that partial performance, improvements, reliance, and possession are recognized exceptions to the Statute of Frauds, the rule requiring real estate contracts to be in writing, and that such factual questions are for summary judgment or trial rather than the pleading stage.

The Reply (Defendant Brandon McGivern, pro se, July 25, 2025)

McGivern argued the response did not address the version-history timeline, and that framing the dispute as authentication under Rule 901 did not answer the fabrication argument. He argued the filings stated three different purchase prices: $320,000, $300,000, and $150,000.

The Court Order (Judge Reilly, September 29, 2025)

The agreed order states no findings beyond the ruling.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents