McGuire v. Marquis
2025 IL App (3d) 240545-U
Ill. App. Ct.2025Background
- Ernestine McGuire sued Daniel Marquis in small claims court for $1,757.68, alleging a dispute over a job to install a stainless-steel countertop at Marquis's restaurant.
- The trial court set a trial date; both parties originally appeared pro se. Marquis's counsel later appeared and filed a motion to continue, citing a scheduling conflict.
- The motion to continue did not indicate any notice to McGuire. On the trial date, neither Marquis nor his counsel appeared.
- The court proceeded with the bench trial, heard testimony from Wilbur James McGuire about the contracted work, and ruled in favor of McGuire, awarding her the full amount requested plus costs.
- Marquis moved to vacate the judgment, arguing confusion over the proceedings and filing of a motion to continue. The trial court denied the motion, noting the absence of defendant and notice issues.
- On appeal, Marquis argued that the trial court abused its discretion and that the judgment was unsupported by the evidence. The appellate court reversed the denial of the motion to vacate and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence for Judgment | McGuire claimed Marquis was liable under contract for payment for the countertop job | Marquis argued evidence did not support judgment against him; no proof of damages to McGuire personally | Court agreed, finding judgment unsupported by the evidence and reversed |
| Appropriateness of Proceeding with Trial in Defendant's Absence | Plaintiff did not object to proceeding; argued case showed valid claim | Marquis argued trial should not have proceeded due to his motion to continue and confusion regarding attendance | Not reached; resolved on sufficiency of evidence, but indicated concern over lack of notice |
| Motion to Vacate Judgment | Plaintiff argued denial was proper due to prior setting and defendant's absence | Marquis argued motion should have been granted due to procedural errors and lack of evidence | Court found abuse of discretion in denying the motion to vacate |
| Presentation of New Facts on Appeal | Plaintiff sought to supplement record with new factual claims on appeal | Marquis argued only evidence presented at trial should be considered | Court disregarded new unsupported facts introduced on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson-Smith & Associates, Inc. v. Nahamani Family Service Center, Inc., 323 Ill. App. 3d 15 (elements of breach of contract claim)
- Covinsky v. Hannah Marine Corp., 388 Ill. App. 3d 478 (manifest weight of the evidence standard in reviewing factual determinations)
- Ollivier v. Alden, 262 Ill. App. 3d 190 (burden of proving damages in breach of contract claims)
- Steiner v. Eckert, 2013 IL App (2d) 121290 (purpose and standard for motion to vacate judgments)
- Regas v. Associated Radiologists, Ltd., 230 Ill. App. 3d 959 (trial court discretion in postjudgment motions)