McGivern v. Hadley Case Documents

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

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion to Reconsider/Clarify Stay Order and Plaintiff’s Motion for Contempt

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: September 16 and October 1, 2025· Decided: October 1 and October 8, 2025

Ruling

On October 1, 2025 the court declined to lift the stay, ordering that “The Stay will not be lifted” and that “Use & Order Payments will not be adjusted based on an increase in mortgage,” and continued the matter to October 8 for a contempt motion and status of payments. On October 8, 2025 the court denied the contempt motion.

The Motions (Plaintiff Brandon McGivern, pro se, September 16 and October 1, 2025)

McGivern requested vacatur of the stay, or alternatively an increase in use and occupancy (payments for continued occupancy while a case is pending) to $3,259 per month, arguing that his combined mortgage obligation rose to $2,303.69 effective October 1 against $2,080 in use and occupancy, that the stay was entered sua sponte (on the court’s own initiative) without notice or briefing, and that Hadley’s chancery complaint identifies McGivern as record titleholder. A September 29 supplement reported chancery orders striking an exhibit as fabricated evidence and deeming 30 requests for admission (statements a party is asked to admit or deny) admitted. The October 1 motion requested a finding of civil contempt (a sanction for disobeying a court order) for nonpayment of $3,120 due September 30, asserting a $5,200 balance and the four elements under In re Marriage of Logston, and requested payment or incarceration, daily fines of $200, a payment order directed to subletters, and vacatur of the stay.

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 Orders (Judge McCarthy, October 1 and October 8, 2025)

The court found that it did properly grant the stay in light of the parties’ pending Chancery matter. On the contempt motion, the court found that payment, though late, was made in full. No other findings are stated.

Documents

AI Summaries
Case Documents