Am. Builders & Contractors Supply, Co. v. Iron Guys Roofing & Restoration, LLC

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: C.A. WALKER PRESIDING JUSTICE
• Citation: Am. Builders & Contractors Supply, Co. v. Iron Guys Roofing & Restoration, LLC, 2025 IL App (1st) 241084U, 1-24-1084 (Ill. App. Dec 26, 2025)
• Docket Number: 1-24-1084
• Decision Date: 26 December 2025
• Parties: AMERICAN BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRON GUYS ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

1

2025 IL App (1st) 241084-U

AMERICAN BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS SUPPLY, CO., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. IRON GUYS ROOFING & RESTORATION, LLC, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1-24-1084

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, Sixth Division

December 26, 2025

This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 20 L 6168 Honorable Jerry A. Esrig, Judge, presiding.

C.A WALKER PRESIDING JUSTICE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Pucinski and Gamrath concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

C.A WALKER PRESIDING JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the PlaintiffAppellee because any improper averments in portions of an affidavit appellee submitted per Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191 (eff. Jan. 4, 2013) did not necessitate striking the entire affidavit.

¶ 2 Appellant-defendant Iron Guys Roofing &Restoration, LLC (Iron Guys) appeals the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiff-appellee American Builders &Contractors Supply, Co. (ABC). Iron Guys argues the court should have struck an affidavit ABC submitted in support, and the motion would necessarily fail without the affidavit. We affirm.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 ABC filed their initial complaint on June 10, 2020, which it amended on June 14, 2022. In the amended complaint, ABC alleged in relevant part that Iron Guys breached a contract with ABC relating to ABC's sale of roofing supplies and building materials to Iron Guys pursuant to a credit agreement. Brendan Ward, as "agent and managing member" of Iron Guys, completed the credit application. After ABC approved their credit, Iron Guys purchased goods from ABC between September 2019 through December 2019. ABC delivered the goods to Iron Guys, but Iron Guys never paid. ABC sought damages in the amount of $120,622.15, plus prejudgment interest, attorney's fees, and other costs.

¶ 5 ABC attached documents to the amended complaint, including (1) a blank form credit application, (2) a photocopy of the completed form signed by Ward, (3) a series of invoices requesting payment from Iron Guys to ABC, and (4) a purported summary of the invoices, showing an unpaid amount of $120,622.15.

¶ 6 Iron Guys answered the amended complaint, admitting that it submitted a credit application to American Builders, but denying that it purchased more than $120,000 in "Goods" from them.

¶ 7 On December 15, 2023, ABC moved for summary judgment, arguing in relevant part that Ward admitted at a deposition that Iron Guys made the purchases as reflected in the invoices. ABC also attached the affidavit of Kim Bausum, ABC's national debt recovery analyst, and argued that "both Kim Brasuam's affidavit and Branden Ward's deposition testimony *** established that Plaintiff's invoices *** are true, genuine, accurate, and complete copies of the invoices for defendant's purchases of Goods." Based on this record, ABC contended there was no dispute of material fact that Iron Guys owed the amounts in the invoices, but failed to pay, and thus ABC was entitled to summary judgment. ABC requested $120,622.15 in principal due; $65,133.61 in prejudgment interest; $13,983.09 in attorney's fees; and $533.26 in costs, for a total of $200,272.11 in damages.

¶ 8 In her affidavit, Brausam averred in relevant part that she had "first-hand knowledge" that (1) the circuit court had jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter; (2) venue was proper; and (3) both ABC and Iron Guys were "merchants," and Iron Guys was a "commercial roofer" that had purchased "goods" from ABC. She further averred that Iron Guys completed the credit application, and after their credit was approved, purchased all the items listed in the invoices. ABC delivered each item appropriately and charged reasonable prices for them. Iron Guys never paid ABC for the items. The affidavit averred "statements of fact contained herein are true to the affiant's best knowledge and belief." Brausam attached the credit application documents and invoices to her affidavit.

¶ 9 ABC also attached Ward's deposition to their motion. In the deposition, Ward testified in relevant part that he was the owner and manager of Iron Guys. At some point, Iron Guys purchased items from ABC on credit. Ward maintained that Iron Guys had made some payments to ABC, and referenced checks that were included as exhibits to the deposition. He further indicated he was currently attempting to "figure exactly what I paid and what I owe so I can - we can come to a settlement and figure out payments." He did not relay exactly how much Iron Guys paid ABC or how much Iron Guys still owed, but acknowledged Iron Guys stopped paying ABC at some point, explaining, "there was a lock-out, and there was a discrepancy of how much owed and there was a lock-out, so I started purchasing with another company until this got resolved." Ward believed the amount ABC sought was "almost $50,000 more than it really is."

¶ 10 The circuit court ordered Iron Guys to file their response to ABC's motion for summary judgment on February 16, 2024. On that day, Iron Guys filed only a "Motion to Strike and Dismiss," arguing that ABC failed to "adhere to the strict requirements" of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191(a) (eff. Jan. 4, 2013) regarding Brausam's affidavit. Specifically, they contended the affidavit was noncompliant because it stated that (1) personal and subject matter jurisdiction were both proper, which were improper conclusions of law; (2) venue was proper, which constituted another improper conclusion of law; and (3) ABC sold "goods," Iron Guys was a "commercial roofer," and both ABC and Iron Guys were "merchants," all of which were terms of art (apparently per the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)), "subject to facts admitted into evidence, and ruled upon by the trier of fact." Because of these failures of strict compliance with Rule 191, Iron Guys argued the court should strike Brausam's affidavit in its entirety, and then dismiss the motion for summary judgment because the affidavit was "essential" to its success.

¶ 11 ABC responded to Iron Guy's motion to strike, arguing that the averments in Brausam's affidavit were proper, and Iron Guys did "not allege any genuine issue of material fact."

¶ 12 On April 19, 2024, the circuit court granted ABC's motion for summary judgment, noting it had considered Iron Guy's "motion to strike and dismiss" and ABC's response thereto, along with the initial motion for summary judgment. It awarded ABC the full requested amount of $200,272.11. This appeal followed.

¶ 13 JURISDICTION

¶ 14 The circuit court granted ABC's motion for summary judgment on April 19, 2024, and Iron Guys filed its notice of appeal on May 20, 2024, giving this court jurisdiction under article VI, section 6 of the Illinois Constitution (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VI, § 6) and Illinois Supreme Court Rules 301 (eff. Feb. 1, 1994) and 303 (eff. July 1, 2017).

¶ 15 ANALYSIS

¶ 16 On appeal, Iron Guys raises the same argument it presented in its motion to strike below, arguing only that Brausam's affidavit should have been stricken as defective on its face, and the motion for summary judgment dismissed accordingly (though Iron Guys omits the complaint regarding the "commercial roofer" term on appeal).

¶ 17 The circuit court resolved this case by granting ABC's motion for summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Iron Guys. "Summary judgment is appropriate where the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and affidavits on file, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveal that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Habdab, LLC v. County of Lake, 2024 IL 130323, ¶ 18 (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2022)). To establish breach of contract, a party must show, "(1) the existence of a valid and enforceable contract, (2) performance by the plaintiff, (3) breach of contract by defendant, and (4) resultant injury to the plaintiff." Zahdan v. Frontline Business Enterprise Inc., 2024 IL App (1st) 221351, ¶ 31.

¶ 18 The affidavits a party may submit in support of, or opposition to, a motion for summary judgment are governed by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 191. Ill. S.Ct. R. 191(a) (eff Jan. 4, 2013). Pursuant to Rule 191, an affidavit "shall be made on the personal knowledge of the affiants; shall set forth with particularity the facts upon which the claim *** is based *** [and] shall not consist of conclusions but of facts admissible in evidence." Id. Because affidavits in the summary judgment contexts are a substitute for trial testimony, strict compliance with Rule 191 is necessary. Robidoux v. Oliphant, 201 Ill.2d 324, 335-36 (2002). When a portion of an affidavit fails to comply with Rule 191's requirements, however, the circuit court should only strike the noncompliant portion, and still consider any compliant portions. Bailey v. Graham Enterprises, Inc., 2019 IL App (1st) 181316, ¶ 22. Whether the circuit court erred in a decision on whether to strike a Rule 191 affidavit in conjunction with a summary judgment motion is reviewed de novo. Id. ¶ 21.

¶ 19 We find the circuit court did not err in denying Iron...