Firstkey Homes, LLC v. Mahwikizi

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: HOWSE JUSTICE
• Citation: Firstkey Homes, LLC v. Mahwikizi, 2025 IL App (1st) 241613U, 1-24-1613 (Ill. App. Dec 22, 2025)
• Docket Number: 1-24-1613
• Decision Date: 22 December 2025
• Parties: FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUSTIN MAHWIKIZI and LAUREN MAHWIKIZI, Defendants-Appellants.

1

2025 IL App (1st) 241613-U

FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUSTIN MAHWIKIZI and LAUREN MAHWIKIZI, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 1-24-1613

Court of Appeals of Illinois, First District, First Division

December 22, 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. 23 M6 007761 Honorable George L. Canellis, Jr., Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOWSE delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Cobbs concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HOWSE JUSTICE

¶ 1 Held: We affirm the circuit court's judgment. Defendants fail to demonstrate that the trial court committed any reversible error. Because we find that there are no individual errors identified by defendants, we necessarily find that defendants have failed to demonstrate cumulative error.

¶ 2 This is a residential eviction case brought by the landlord Firstkey Homes, LLC, against the tenants Justin and Lauren Mahwikizi. Following a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment on the verdict in plaintiff's favor. Plaintiff was awarded possession of the premises, $25,812.42 in unpaid rent, and $816.81 in court costs. Defendants appeal the judgment, raising ten different issues that they claim entitle them to relief on appeal. For the following reasons we affirm the circuit court's judgment.

¶ 3 BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Plaintiff Firstkey Homes, LLC filed a complaint in the circuit court for a residential eviction against defendants Justin Mahwikizi and Lauren Mahwikizi. Plaintiff alleged that it had terminated the lease for nonpayment of rent in the amount of $4,511.16.

¶ 5 Defendants filed their pro se appearances in the case and moved for substitution of judge. The motion for substitution was granted, and the case was assigned to Judge George Canellis, Jr. Defendants moved for the substitution of Judge Canellis asserting there was cause for his removal. The case was transferred to Judge Michael B. Barrett for hearing. Following the hearing, Judge Barrett denied the motion for substitution and explained in a written order that defendants "presented no credible evidence to prove prejudice or bias on the part of Judge Canellis. To the contrary, the evidence presented was not credible ***." The case was transferred back to Judge Canellis for further proceedings.

¶ 6 The trial court subsequently entered multiple continuances for defendants to file any counterclaims. Defendants answered the complaint and denied the allegations. They also asserted five affirmative defenses. Defendants filed a "counterclaim" asserting that "[p]laintiff failed to properly serve defendants." The requested relief in the counterclaim was for the court to dismiss the action without prejudice due to the allegedly improper service. Defendants asserted additional counterclaims such as violations of the implied warranty of habitability and constructive eviction. They requested damages allowed by law and punitive damages against plaintiff.

¶ 7 Plaintiff responded with a motion to dismiss the counterclaims. Plaintiff argued in its motion to dismiss that the counterclaims were not germane to this action because plaintiff sought only possession of the premises and the counterclaims filed by defendants seeking money damages and punitive damages did not contest the issue of possession in any way and could stand independently in a separate action (citing 735 ILCS 5/9-106 (West 2024)). The trial court granted plaintiff's motion to strike the counterclaims.

¶ 8 Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for improper service of process, failure to timely serve the demand notice, failure to attach a copy of the lease to the complaint, and failure to accept a tendered payment thereby triggering a default. The trial court denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

¶ 9 The court held a pretrial conference. According to the statement of facts submitted by defendants, at the pretrial conference, plaintiff tendered its proposed jury instructions to the trial court. The trial judge asked defendant Justin Mahwikizi if he had received a copy of the jury instructions and if he had any comments about them. Justin responded that yes, he had received the instructions and "I have no objections to the jury instructions."

¶ 10 Also at the pretrial conference and also according to defendants' statement of facts, the parties and the court discussed the issue of trial witnesses and then Justin brought up another concern. He explained that his wife, Lauren, is also a party to this suit. He informed the court that they have four children and they were unable to secure childcare, so the children would be with them at trial. He explained that their youngest child was two years old, so they may require a couple recesses during trial. The trial judge explained that defendants' young children could not be in court during the trial because it might influence the jury. The trial judge explained that the courthouse has a childcare facility if defendants needed to leave their children there. Justin explained that he planned to have his wife question him on the witness stand and then he would question her.

¶ 11 The trial judge explained that when a party is self-represented, the person usually sits in the witness chair and talks to the jury about the case. Justin asked the court, "could I have another adult interrogate me" if his wife was not present. The trial court explained that it could not permit someone other than an attorney to question him during the trial. The case was continued for the commencement of trial.

¶ 12 No court reporter was present for the jury trial. Following trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff. Judgment was entered on the verdict and plaintiff was awarded possession of the premises, $25,812.42 in unpaid rent, and $816.81 in court costs. Defendants filed this appeal.

¶ 13 Along with filing their notice of appeal, defendants moved the circuit court to stay enforcement of the judgment pending appeal. The circuit court granted, in part, defendants' motion to stay enforcement of the judgment. The circuit court ordered defendants to post bond and pay use and occupancy to plaintiff each month. Defendants filed a motion to stay, vacate, or modify the order granting their stay, arguing that they wished to be permitted to post their bond with a letter of credit. The circuit court granted defendants' motion in part, denying them a stay of the order but permitting them to file the bond in any form accepted by the Clerk of the Circuit Court, including a letter of credit. The circuit court also ordered defendants to make the use and occupancy payments set forth previously. Defendants filed two subsequent motions to modify the stay. Eventually, the Clerk of the Circuit Court allowed defendants to post bond by pledging two certificates of deposit. The trial court ordered the bank to hold the funds pledged by defendants and not disburse the funds until further order of court.

¶ 14 During the proceedings related to the stay, defendants moved for sanctions against plaintiff's attorney for alleged misrepresentations to the trial court and separately moved for sanctions against a witness for alleged perjury. Defendant Justin Mahwikizi sent a letter to the Presiding Judge of the Sixth Municipal District raising what he believed to be "significant concerns about the working relationship between the judiciary and the Clerk's Office." He urged the presiding judge to implement enhanced judicial training and improved communication channels between the judiciary and the clerk's office.

¶ 15 While all of the proceedings related to the appellate stay and the posting of the bond were ongoing, defendants were concurrently compiling various bystander's reports. Ultimately, defendant Justin Mahwikizi submitted around 200 pages he typed in the form of a report of proceedings that included his recollection of dialogue between the parties and the court as well as questions asked and answers given by trial witnesses. After some back and forth between the parties and the court, the trial court certified a bystander's report that is included as part of the record on appeal.

¶ 16 ANALYSIS

¶ 17 Defendants raise 10 issues on appeal. One, they argue that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied them leave to amend their dismissed counterclaims. Two, they argue that the trial court erred when it struck all of their defenses before trial. Three, they argue that the trial court erred when it only instructed the jury under plaintiff's theory of the case. Four, they argue that the trial court's exclusion of Lauren Mahwikizi from the trial violated her right to due process. Five, they argue that the trial court denied them a fair trial by denying them reasonable accommodations based on their self-represented status. Six, they argue that the trial court's conduct during postjudgment proceedings relating to the bond created the appearance of bias. Seven, they argue that the cumulative effect of all of the above errors denied them due process and a fair trial. Eight, they argue that the trial court erred when ordering alterations to their proposed bystander's report and refusing to certify one of the proposed reports. Nine, they argue that the trial court failed to comply with the statute governing substitution of judge proceedings when it transferred the case to another judge for the hearing, but not to the presiding judge of the division. Ten, they argue that the trial court erred when it denied them an evidentiary hearing on the issue of service of process.

¶ 18 1. Leave to Amend

¶ 19 Defendants argue that the trial court abused its discretion when...