Set-off Is Counterclaim; Not Affirmative Defense – IL Court Rules in Partition Suit

Stadnyk v. Nedoshytko, 2017 IL App (1st) 152103-U views the counterclaim-versus-affirmative defense distinction through the prism of a statutory partition suit involving co-owners of a Chicago apartment building.

The plaintiff sued to declare the parties’ respective ownership rights in the subject property.  After the court issued a partition order finding the plaintiff and defendants had respective 7/8 and 1/8 ownership interests.  After the trial court ordered a partition of the property, the defendants filed affirmative defenses titled unjust enrichment, breach of fiduciary duty and equitable accounting.  Through all the “defenses” defendants sought to recoup property maintenance and repair expenses they made through the years.

The trial court struck defendants’ affirmative defenses on the basis that they were actually counterclaims and not defenses. The court also refused to award statutory attorneys’ fees to the plaintiff.  Each side appealed.

Affirming the trial court’s striking of the defendants’ affirmative defenses, the First District initially considered the difference between an affirmative defense and a counterclaim.

Code Section 2-608 provides that counterclaims in the nature of “setoff, recoupment, cross-claim or otherwise, and whether in tort or contract, for liquidated or unliquidated damages, or for other relief, may be pleaded as a cross claim in any action, and when so pleaded shall be called a counterclaim.” 735 ILCS 5/2-608

Code Section 2-613 governs affirmative defenses and requires the pleader to allege facts supporting a given defense and gives as examples, payment, release, satisfaction, discharge, license, fraud, duress, estoppel, laches, statute of frauds, illegality, contributory negligence, want or failure of consideration. 735 ILCS 5/2-613.

Counterclaims differ from affirmative defenses in that counterclaims seek affirmative relief while affirmative defenses simply seek to defeat a plaintiff’s cause of action.  In this case, the defendants’ did not seek to defeat plaintiff’s partition suit.  Instead, the defendants sought post-partition set-offs against sale proceeds going to plaintiff for defendants’ property maintenance and repair expenses.

A setoff is a counterclaim filed by a defendant on a transaction extrinsic to the subject of plaintiff’s suit.  Since the defendants styled their affirmative defenses as sounding in setoff and accounting – two causes of action (not defenses) – the Court affirmed the trial court’s striking the defenses.

The Court also reversed the trial court’s order refusing to apportion plaintiff’s attorneys fees.  Section 17-125 of the partition statute provides that a partition plaintiff’s attorney can recover his fees apportioned among the various parties since, in theory, the attorney acts for all interested parties.  However, where a party mounts a “good and substantial defense to the complaint,” the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees should not be spread among the litigants. 735 ILCS 5/17-125.

Here, the defendants attempted to raise defenses (setoff and public sale, as opposed to private, was required) but only after the trial court entered the partition order.  Since the defendants didn’t challenge plaintiff’s partition request but instead sought a setoff for defendants’ contributions to the property and a public sale of the property, the trial court correctly concluded the defendants failed to raise good and substantial defenses under the partition statute.  As a consequence, the trial court should have apportioned plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.


Stadnyk cements the proposition that a counterclaim differs from an affirmative defense and that setoff fits into the former category.  The case also stresses that where a defendant seeks to recover damages from a plaintiff based on a collateral transaction (other than the one underlying the plaintiff’s lawsuit), defendant should file a counterclaim for a setoff rather than attempt to raise the setoff as a defense.

Other critical holdings from the case include that a court of equity lacks power to go against clear statutory language that require a public sale and partition plaintiff attorneys’ fees should only be apportioned where a defendant doesn’t raise a substantial defense to the partition suit.



Published by


Litigation attorney at Bielski Chapman, Ltd. representing businesses and individuals in business litigation, post-judgment enforcement, collections and real estate litigation.

562 thoughts on “Set-off Is Counterclaim; Not Affirmative Defense – IL Court Rules in Partition Suit”

  1. Pingback: 1estimation
  2. Pingback: canada viagra
  3. Pingback: canada drug
  4. Pingback: online pharmacy
  5. Pingback: canada viagra
  6. Pingback: canadian drug
  7. Pingback:
  8. Pingback: canada medication
  9. Pingback: canadian viagra
  10. Pingback:
  11. Pingback: canadian drugs
  12. Pingback: online pharmacies
  13. Pingback: online drug store
  14. Pingback: cialis from canada
  15. Pingback: Gz92uNNH
  16. Pingback: do-posle-psihologa
  17. Pingback: drugstore online
  18. Pingback: meritroyalbet
  19. Pingback: madridbet
  20. Pingback: meritroyalbet
  21. Pingback: eurocasino
  22. Pingback: online pharmacies
  23. Pingback: pharmacy canada
  24. Pingback: DPTPtNqS
  25. Pingback: qQ8KZZE6
  26. Pingback: D6tuzANh
  27. Pingback: SHKALA TONOV
  28. Pingback: chelovek-iz-90-h
  29. Pingback: online drug store
  30. Pingback: 3Hk12Bl
  31. Pingback: 3NOZC44
  32. Pingback: 01211
  33. Pingback: tor-lyubov-i-grom
  34. Pingback: film-tor-2022
  35. Pingback: hd-tor-2022
  36. Pingback:
  37. Pingback: JXNhGmmt
  38. Pingback: Psikholog
  39. Pingback:
  40. Pingback: 1lifelong
  41. Pingback: meritroyalbet
  42. Pingback: canadian cialis
  43. Pingback: Link
  44. Pingback: psy
  45. Pingback:
  46. Pingback:
  47. Pingback: bucha killings
  48. Pingback: War in Ukraine
  49. Pingback: Ukraine
  50. Pingback: pharmacy canada
  51. Pingback: site
  52. Pingback: stats
  53. Pingback: canadian cialis
  54. Pingback: Ukraine-war
  55. Pingback: movies
  56. Pingback: gidonline
  57. Pingback:
  58. Pingback: pharmacy
  59. Pingback: web
  60. Pingback:
  61. Pingback: video
  62. Pingback: drugstore online
  63. Pingback:
  64. Pingback:
  65. Pingback: film
  66. Pingback:
  67. Pingback: online pharmacy
  68. Pingback:
  69. Pingback: buy viagra now
  70. Pingback:
  71. Pingback: canada drug
  72. Pingback:
  73. Pingback: rodnoe-kino-ru
  74. Pingback: buy generic cialis
  75. Pingback:
  76. Pingback: confeitofilm
  77. Pingback:
  78. Pingback: buy cialis usa
  79. Pingback: buy cialis online
  80. Pingback: sY5am
  81. Pingback: buy cialis no rx
  82. Pingback: Dom drakona
  83. Pingback: JGXldbkj
  84. Pingback: aOuSjapt
  85. Pingback: buy viagra usa
  86. Pingback: ìûøëåíèå
  87. Pingback: psikholog moskva
  88. Pingback: Usik Dzhoshua 2
  89. Pingback: porno}
  90. Pingback: buy viagra germany
  91. Pingback: buy viagra no rx
  92. Pingback: Dim Drakona 2022
  93. Pingback: TwnE4zl6
  94. Pingback: psy 3CtwvjS
  95. Pingback: meriking
  96. Pingback: buy viagra germany
  97. Pingback: lalochesia
  98. Pingback: film onlinee
  99. Pingback: online pharmacies
  100. Pingback: madridbet
  101. Pingback: madridbet
  102. Pingback: dose of stromectol
  103. Pingback: ivermectin tablets
  104. Pingback: stromectol stock
  105. Pingback: 3qAIwwN
  106. Pingback: mgfmail
  107. Pingback: video-2
  108. Pingback:
  109. Pingback: stromectol sale
  110. Pingback: stromectol espana
  111. Pingback:
  112. Pingback: 000-1
  113. Pingback: 3SoTS32
  114. Pingback: 3DGofO7
  115. Pingback: canadian drugs
  116. Pingback: buy viagra 25mg
  117. Pingback: buy viagra delhi
  118. Pingback: stromectol cvs
  119. Pingback: stromectol lice
  120. Pingback: online pharmacies
  121. Pingback: drugstore online
  122. Pingback: canada drug
  123. Pingback:
  124. Pingback: madridbet
  125. Pingback: pharmacy
  126. Pingback: northwestpharmacy
  127. Pingback:
  128. Pingback: drugstore online
  129. Pingback: zamazingo1
  130. Pingback:
  131. Pingback:
  132. Pingback:
  133. Pingback:
  134. Pingback: stromectol lice
  135. Pingback: meritking
  136. Pingback:
  137. Pingback: brutv
  138. Pingback: stromectol tablets
  139. Pingback: site 2023
  140. Pingback: canada pharmacy
  141. Pingback: canadian pharmacys
  142. Pingback: grandpashabet
  143. Pingback: Northwest Pharmacy
  144. Pingback: cialis from canada
  145. Pingback: canadian drug
  146. Pingback: canadadrugs
  147. Pingback:
  148. Pingback:
  149. Pingback: buy viagra usa
  150. Pingback: online pharmacy
  151. Pingback: 1703
  152. Pingback: drugs for sale
  153. Pingback:
  154. Pingback: canadian drug
  155. Pingback:
  156. Pingback:
  157. Pingback:
  158. Pingback:
  159. Pingback: canadian drugs
  160. Pingback: bep5w0Df
  161. Pingback: canadian drug
  162. Pingback: icf
  163. Pingback: 24hours-news
  164. Pingback: rusnewsweek
  165. Pingback: uluro-ado
  166. Pingback: canada drugs
  167. Pingback: canada drug
  168. Pingback:
  169. Pingback: klondayk2022
  170. Pingback: gravatar.comkqwsh
  171. Pingback: viagra canada
  172. Pingback: northwestpharmacy
  173. Pingback: madridbet
  174. Pingback: sex
  175. Pingback: fuvk google
  176. Pingback: okey oyna
  177. Pingback: fuck google
  178. Pingback: madridbet
  179. Pingback:
  180. Pingback: madridbet
  181. Pingback: 2023
  182. Pingback: meritking giriş
  183. Pingback:
  184. Pingback:
  185. Pingback:
  186. Pingback: madridbet
  187. Pingback: grandpashabet
  188. Pingback: meritking
  189. Pingback: meritking
  190. Pingback: meritking

Comments are closed.