2026 IL App (1st) 251094-U No. 1-25-1094 Order filed March 4, 2026 Third Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ 5120 SOUTH LLC, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) ) No. 24 M1 718394 STEVEN HOBBS, SCYE HOBBS, and UNKNOWN ) OCCUPANTS, ) ) Defendants, ) Honorable ) Pablo DeCastro, (Steven Hobbs and Scye Hobbs, Defendants-Appellants). ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Rochford and Reyes concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Appeal from an eviction order dismissed as moot as to possession and affirmed as to the monetary judgment.
¶2 Defendants Steven Hobbs (Steven) and Scye Hobbs (Scye) appeal pro se from the trial
court’s order, entered following an ex parte bench trial, granting possession of an apartment in
Chicago to plaintiff 5120 South LLC and entering a monetary judgment against Steven for $21,843 No. 1-25-1094
in rent and costs. Steven has filed an appellant brief contending that the court abused its discretion
in “granting default eviction” when he presented meritorious defenses and counterclaims. We
dismiss in part and affirm in part. 1
¶3 The record on appeal comprises the common law record with no report of proceedings or
acceptable substitute.
¶4 On November 12, 2024, 5120 South LLC filed an eviction complaint against Steven, Scye,
and unknown occupants alleging that Steven and Scye breached their lease for the apartment by
nonpayment of rent and remaining in possession of the apartment after receiving a five-day notice
demanding possession. 5120 South LLC sought possession of the apartment and $10,340 in past
due rent through November 30, 2024, “plus court costs, and rent or use and occupancy through the
stay date on the Eviction Order, accruing at a rate of $2000.00 per month, plus any additional rent
per the rental agreement.”
¶5 5120 South LLC attached copies of the first 5 pages of the 18-page lease for the premises
and the five-day notice. According to the lease, monthly rent was $1,826. The lease named The
Stewardship Group (Stewardship) as landlord or authorized management agent. The lease included
an addendum for “ERAMP” or the Emergency Relief for Affordable Multifamily Properties
program.
¶6 After multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve defendants with process, the court authorized
service by posting. The affidavit of service certified that notice was posted at the courthouse and
Chicago city hall and mailed to defendants on January 24, 2025. On February 10, 2025, the court
In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this 1
appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.
-2- No. 1-25-1094
issued an order noting that defendants did not appear and continuing the case to February 25, 2025,
“for Prove Up.” 5120 South LLC mailed defendants a copy of the continuance order.
¶7 On February 25, 2025, the court continued the case in a written order noting that Steven
was present in court.
¶8 On March 24, 2025, Steven filed a pro se appearance and, in his name and Scye’s, also
filed a “motion to vacate [the] default judgment” entered on February 10, 2025. The court
continued the motion to vacate to April 16, 2025.
¶9 On April 15, 2025, Steven filed an emergency motion for a continuance and jury trial. On
April 16, 2025, the court denied the motion for a jury trial as untimely and continued the case for
bench trial to April 29, 2025.
¶ 10 On April 29, 2025, Steven filed a “Sworn Statement of Fact” alleging that the apartment
had “undergone ownership changes that have resulted in ongoing legal disputes, negligence, and
violations of local, state, and federal laws.” Specifically, Stewardship, the prior owner, received
$75,000 under the ERAMP program with “strict tenant protections,” including “no 5 day notices
only 30 day, no eviction without city approval,” a rent cap of $1,650 monthly, and “[n]o sale
without city approval.” Steven had agreed to purchase the premises from Stewardship and
performed work to facilitate the transaction but Stewardship “was engaging in bad faith
negotiations.” Steven filed a mechanic’s lien against the premises for $78,000 for “unpaid services
rendered and time invested in facilitating the transaction,” and emotional distress.
¶ 11 Steven further alleged that Stewardship’s ultimate sale of the premises to 5120 South LLC
was unlawful, because Steven’s mechanic’s lien was not paid and the sale occurred without city
approval as required by the ERAMP program. His rent violated the ERAMP rent cap, the five-day
-3- No. 1-25-1094
notice was “fraudulent,” and the eviction was retaliatory. Steven also alleged that he slipped and
fell on the front steps of the premises on February 6, 2025, breaking four vertebrae, which he
claimed resulted from 5120 South LLC’s negligence in failing to salt the pavement, install
handrails, and provide lighting. Steven sought $95,000 for medical expenses to date, $300,000 for
possible surgery, close to $3 million for non-economic damages, and over $10 million in punitive
damages for gross negligence.
¶ 12 Attached to Steven’s filing were copies of documents including an unsigned sales contract
for the premises between Steven and Stewardship, Steven’s mechanic’s lien, the deed conveying
the premises from Stewardship to 5120 South LLC, an email to Steven from a city official stating
that the city “has no stake in the claims” he presented but “intends to pursue remedies” for “default
on the ERAMP grant agreement” with Stewardship, the ERAMP grant agreement, and an amended
federal civil complaint filed by Steven against 5120 South LLC, Stewardship, and others
¶ 13 Also on April 29, 2025, the court continued the case for a bench trial to May 19, 2025.
¶ 14 On May 19, 2025, the court issued an eviction order following a “trial in defendant’s
absence pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/9-109.” (Section 9-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS
5/9-109 (West 2024)) provides that in an eviction case where “the defendant does not appear,
having been duly summoned as herein provided[,] the trial may proceed ex parte” and “without a
jury.”) The eviction order granted possession of the apartment to 5120 South LLC against all
defendants and found that Steven owed 5120 South LLC $20,850 in rent and $993 in court costs
for a judgment totaling $21,843.
¶ 15 On May 21, 2025, Steven and Scye filed a “motion to vacate default judgment entered on
May 19, 2025.” The motion claimed that the “Judge had an emergency” on April 29, 2025, and
-4- No. 1-25-1094
that the courtroom bailiff suggested Steven “file a complaint with ARDC against [5120 South
LLC’s counsel] for threatening in the courtroom and stalking outside the courtroom.” It claimed
that Steven did not receive a copy of the continuance order because he was “escorted out of the
courtroom to the elevator,” and 5120 South LLC never sent the order or notice of the new trial
date.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2026 IL App (1st) 251094-U No. 1-25-1094 Order filed March 4, 2026 Third Division
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________ 5120 SOUTH LLC, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Cook County. ) v. ) ) No. 24 M1 718394 STEVEN HOBBS, SCYE HOBBS, and UNKNOWN ) OCCUPANTS, ) ) Defendants, ) Honorable ) Pablo DeCastro, (Steven Hobbs and Scye Hobbs, Defendants-Appellants). ) Judge, presiding.
JUSTICE LAMPKIN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Rochford and Reyes concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: Appeal from an eviction order dismissed as moot as to possession and affirmed as to the monetary judgment.
¶2 Defendants Steven Hobbs (Steven) and Scye Hobbs (Scye) appeal pro se from the trial
court’s order, entered following an ex parte bench trial, granting possession of an apartment in
Chicago to plaintiff 5120 South LLC and entering a monetary judgment against Steven for $21,843 No. 1-25-1094
in rent and costs. Steven has filed an appellant brief contending that the court abused its discretion
in “granting default eviction” when he presented meritorious defenses and counterclaims. We
dismiss in part and affirm in part. 1
¶3 The record on appeal comprises the common law record with no report of proceedings or
acceptable substitute.
¶4 On November 12, 2024, 5120 South LLC filed an eviction complaint against Steven, Scye,
and unknown occupants alleging that Steven and Scye breached their lease for the apartment by
nonpayment of rent and remaining in possession of the apartment after receiving a five-day notice
demanding possession. 5120 South LLC sought possession of the apartment and $10,340 in past
due rent through November 30, 2024, “plus court costs, and rent or use and occupancy through the
stay date on the Eviction Order, accruing at a rate of $2000.00 per month, plus any additional rent
per the rental agreement.”
¶5 5120 South LLC attached copies of the first 5 pages of the 18-page lease for the premises
and the five-day notice. According to the lease, monthly rent was $1,826. The lease named The
Stewardship Group (Stewardship) as landlord or authorized management agent. The lease included
an addendum for “ERAMP” or the Emergency Relief for Affordable Multifamily Properties
program.
¶6 After multiple unsuccessful attempts to serve defendants with process, the court authorized
service by posting. The affidavit of service certified that notice was posted at the courthouse and
Chicago city hall and mailed to defendants on January 24, 2025. On February 10, 2025, the court
In adherence with the requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 352(a) (eff. July 1, 2018), this 1
appeal has been resolved without oral argument upon the entry of a separate written order.
-2- No. 1-25-1094
issued an order noting that defendants did not appear and continuing the case to February 25, 2025,
“for Prove Up.” 5120 South LLC mailed defendants a copy of the continuance order.
¶7 On February 25, 2025, the court continued the case in a written order noting that Steven
was present in court.
¶8 On March 24, 2025, Steven filed a pro se appearance and, in his name and Scye’s, also
filed a “motion to vacate [the] default judgment” entered on February 10, 2025. The court
continued the motion to vacate to April 16, 2025.
¶9 On April 15, 2025, Steven filed an emergency motion for a continuance and jury trial. On
April 16, 2025, the court denied the motion for a jury trial as untimely and continued the case for
bench trial to April 29, 2025.
¶ 10 On April 29, 2025, Steven filed a “Sworn Statement of Fact” alleging that the apartment
had “undergone ownership changes that have resulted in ongoing legal disputes, negligence, and
violations of local, state, and federal laws.” Specifically, Stewardship, the prior owner, received
$75,000 under the ERAMP program with “strict tenant protections,” including “no 5 day notices
only 30 day, no eviction without city approval,” a rent cap of $1,650 monthly, and “[n]o sale
without city approval.” Steven had agreed to purchase the premises from Stewardship and
performed work to facilitate the transaction but Stewardship “was engaging in bad faith
negotiations.” Steven filed a mechanic’s lien against the premises for $78,000 for “unpaid services
rendered and time invested in facilitating the transaction,” and emotional distress.
¶ 11 Steven further alleged that Stewardship’s ultimate sale of the premises to 5120 South LLC
was unlawful, because Steven’s mechanic’s lien was not paid and the sale occurred without city
approval as required by the ERAMP program. His rent violated the ERAMP rent cap, the five-day
-3- No. 1-25-1094
notice was “fraudulent,” and the eviction was retaliatory. Steven also alleged that he slipped and
fell on the front steps of the premises on February 6, 2025, breaking four vertebrae, which he
claimed resulted from 5120 South LLC’s negligence in failing to salt the pavement, install
handrails, and provide lighting. Steven sought $95,000 for medical expenses to date, $300,000 for
possible surgery, close to $3 million for non-economic damages, and over $10 million in punitive
damages for gross negligence.
¶ 12 Attached to Steven’s filing were copies of documents including an unsigned sales contract
for the premises between Steven and Stewardship, Steven’s mechanic’s lien, the deed conveying
the premises from Stewardship to 5120 South LLC, an email to Steven from a city official stating
that the city “has no stake in the claims” he presented but “intends to pursue remedies” for “default
on the ERAMP grant agreement” with Stewardship, the ERAMP grant agreement, and an amended
federal civil complaint filed by Steven against 5120 South LLC, Stewardship, and others
¶ 13 Also on April 29, 2025, the court continued the case for a bench trial to May 19, 2025.
¶ 14 On May 19, 2025, the court issued an eviction order following a “trial in defendant’s
absence pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/9-109.” (Section 9-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS
5/9-109 (West 2024)) provides that in an eviction case where “the defendant does not appear,
having been duly summoned as herein provided[,] the trial may proceed ex parte” and “without a
jury.”) The eviction order granted possession of the apartment to 5120 South LLC against all
defendants and found that Steven owed 5120 South LLC $20,850 in rent and $993 in court costs
for a judgment totaling $21,843.
¶ 15 On May 21, 2025, Steven and Scye filed a “motion to vacate default judgment entered on
May 19, 2025.” The motion claimed that the “Judge had an emergency” on April 29, 2025, and
-4- No. 1-25-1094
that the courtroom bailiff suggested Steven “file a complaint with ARDC against [5120 South
LLC’s counsel] for threatening in the courtroom and stalking outside the courtroom.” It claimed
that Steven did not receive a copy of the continuance order because he was “escorted out of the
courtroom to the elevator,” and 5120 South LLC never sent the order or notice of the new trial
date. Steven asserted that he was diligent in bringing this motion and had a meritorious defense to
the claims, and that vacating the judgment would not unduly prejudice 5120 South LLC.
¶ 16 5120 South LLC filed a motion to strike and dismiss the motion to vacate, explaining that,
on April 29, 2025, the judge assigned to the case was absent due to an emergency and another
judge presided. According to the motion, Steven was present in court and agreed to the new trial
date of May 19, 2025. That day, when Steven did not appear for over a half-hour after the scheduled
trial time, the court held an ex parte trial with one witness, 5120 South LLC’s principal. 5120
South LLC argued that Steven failed to explain his absence from trial and did not act with due
diligence, failed to show a meritorious defense as he filed no answer, affirmative defenses, or
counterclaim, and that 5120 South LLC was prejudiced by the delay in collecting unpaid rent and
costs.
¶ 17 Steven and Scye responded to 5120 South LLC’s motion, arguing that the judgment entered
on May 19, 2025, should be vacated due to 5120 South LLC’s attorney’s threats and lack of proper
notice. The response reiterated Steven’s defenses and requested leave to file an incorporated
proposed answer to the eviction complaint, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims.
¶ 18 On June 4, 2025, the court denied the “motion to vacate default judgment” and ordered that
the eviction order stand. On July 28, 2025, the trial court entered an order amending the eviction
order nunc pro tunc to correct a scrivener’s error.
-5- No. 1-25-1094
¶ 19 Steven timely filed a notice of appeal on June 9, 2025. Since then, we have denied Steven’s
pro se motions to stay the eviction, without prejudice, and to reconsider the denial of a stay.
¶ 20 On appeal, Steven challenges the “default eviction,” contending that the trial court abused
its discretion by entering judgment against him when he presented meritorious defenses and
counterclaims.
¶ 21 As a threshold issue, 5120 South LLC maintains the issue of possession is moot because
the eviction was executed. Steven’s brief, in turn, states that, on August 10, 2025, “[e]viction
occurred, causing homelessness.”
¶ 22 An appeal is moot if no actual controversy exists and a reviewing court’s decision could
have no practical effect on the parties so it cannot grant effectual relief. In re V.S., 2025 IL
129755, ¶ 55. In this case, we cannot grant any defendant possession of the apartment because the
eviction has been completed, so an appeal from the award of possession is moot. See Delgado v.
Crowley, 2025 IL App (1st) 240831-U, ¶ 18 (collecting cases); Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(e)(1) (eff. June 3,
2025) (unpublished order entered on January 1, 2021, or later “may be cited for persuasive
purposes”). However, the monetary judgment entered only against Steven is not moot and remains
a viable issue for this court to review. See id. ¶ 19 (citing Poulos v. Reda, 165 Ill. App. 3d 793,
798 (1987) (possession was no longer a viable issue but the claim for rent remained viable)).
¶ 23 As another threshold issue, 5120 South LLC asks us to strike Steven’s appellant brief for
failure to comply with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(6), (7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020) regarding the
content of briefs and Rule 342 (eff. Oct. 1, 2019) requiring that a brief’s appendix include the
judgment being appealed. Steven’s brief lacks citations to the record in his statement of facts or
argument, and the attachments to his brief do not include the judgment being appealed while
-6- No. 1-25-1094
including documents we cannot consider because they are not in the record. See also Waukegan
Hospitality Group, LLC v. Stretch’s Sports Bar & Grill, 2024 IL 129277, ¶ 20 (attachments to
briefs not included in the record are not before the court and do not supplement the record); King
v. Find-A-Way Shipping, LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307, ¶ 15 (arguments may be rejected for
violating Rule 341). While pro se litigants such as Steven have the same obligation as counsel to
comply with rules governing appeals, we need not strike the brief and may proceed with our review
when, as here, the record is short and we have the benefit of a cogent appellee brief. Matlock v.
Illinois Department of Employment Security, 2019 IL App (1st) 180645, ¶¶ 14-16. That said, we
find the record on appeal insufficient to review the issue presented.
¶ 24 The court entered an eviction order on May 19, 2025, following an ex parte trial, and the
motion to vacate that order was denied on June 4, 2025. However, the record on appeal does not
include a transcript or an acceptable substitute (Ill. S. Ct. R. 323(c), (d) (eff. July 1, 2017)) for
those proceedings.
¶ 25 Steven, as appellant, has the burden of presenting a record sufficiently complete to support
his claims of error. Doe v. Readey, 2023 IL App (1st) 230867, ¶ 36. Absent a complete record, we
presume the trial court’s order conformed to the law and had a sufficient factual basis. Id. Any
doubt arising from an incomplete record is resolved against the appellant, even a pro se appellant
such as Steven. King, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307, ¶¶ 29-31. “To determine whether the trial court
made the error which appellant is claiming, a court of review must have before it the record of the
proceedings where the error was allegedly made.” Id. ¶ 31. The presumption that the trial court did
not err is particularly applicable to a judgment following trial, as here, because we review a
-7- No. 1-25-1094
judgment or order following a bench trial for whether it was against the manifest weight of the
evidence. Rivas v. Benny’s Prime Chophouse, LLC, 2025 IL App (1st) 242044, ¶ 48.
¶ 26 Without the relevant reports of proceedings, we cannot know what evidence or arguments
the trial court heard. We cannot determine on this record whether, as Steven claims, the eviction
order was unlawful and erroneous. King, 2020 IL App (1st) 191307, ¶ 31. The record therefore is
insufficient to review the issues raised. Absent a complete record, we must presume the eviction
order awarding 5120 South LLC a monetary judgment against Steven conformed to the law and
had a sufficient factual basis and affirm. Doe, 2023 IL App (1st) 230867, ¶ 36.
¶ 27 Accordingly, we dismiss as moot the appeal from the award of possession and affirm the
judgment of the trial court in all other respects.
¶ 28 Affirmed in part and dismissed in part.
-8-