CB Chicago Partners v. Williams — Illinois appellate court upholds third default judgment

Case
CB Chicago Partners, Ltd. v. John Williams and Patrice Williams
Court
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Second Division
Judge
Justice Reyes; Presiding Justice D.B. Walker; Justice Van Tine
Date Decided
September 15, 2026
Docket No.
1-25-0704
Topics
Default judgment; Commercial lease; Motions to vacate; Discovery
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

CB Chicago Partners sued John and Patrice Williams over unpaid rent under a commercial lease for a Markham daycare facility. The complaint alleged that the Williamses owed $150,003.47, plus fees and other amounts. The lease treated nonpayment of rent as a default and expressly limited the force majeure provision’s application to rent payments.

The defendants obtained vacatur of two earlier default judgments: first after retaining counsel and then after counsel failed to timely plead. They answered the complaint but asserted no affirmative defenses. During discovery, their counsel withdrew; the defendants neither retained replacement counsel nor filed supplemental appearances, failed to respond to discovery requests, and did not appear at a scheduled status hearing. The circuit court entered a third default judgment, this time for $219,615.25.

The Court’s Holding

The appellate court affirmed the denial of the defendants’ timely pro se motion to vacate the third default judgment under section 2-1301(e) of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that vacatur would not serve substantial justice.

The defendants had repeatedly failed to meet litigation obligations, including appearing in court, retaining substitute counsel, and responding to discovery. Their failure to answer requests to admit meant they had admitted facts sufficient to support judgment on the merits; because those requests were absent from the appellate record, the appellate court presumed the circuit court’s finding was correct. With no affirmative defenses pleaded, reopening the default would have had no practical effect. The court also rejected the claimed lack of notice because the default hearing coincided with a previously scheduled status hearing the defendants were expected to attend.

Key Takeaways

  • A trial court may deny a motion to vacate when repeated noncompliance shows that another opportunity to litigate would not advance substantial justice.
  • Unanswered requests to admit can establish facts sufficient for judgment, and an incomplete appellate record is construed against the appellant.
  • A party’s absence from a hearing is not excused by delayed notice of a default motion when the same hearing date was already set for a status appearance.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates that Illinois courts assess the full course of a party’s conduct when deciding whether to set aside a default. Prompt filing of a motion to vacate does not compel relief where the party has repeatedly failed to participate and lacks a viable path to contest the merits.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top