Illinois Compiled Statutes
735 ILCS 5/2-613 (2026)
Separate counts and defenses
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 5/2-613)
(from Ch. 110, par. 2-613)
Sec. 2-613.
Separate counts and defenses.
(a) Parties may plead as
many causes of action, counterclaims, defenses, and matters in reply
as they may have, and each shall be separately designated and
numbered.
(b) When a party is in doubt as to which of two or more statements
of fact is true, he or she may, regardless of consistency, state them in the
alternative or hypothetically in the same or different counts or
defenses. A bad alternative does not affect a good one.
(c) Defenses to jurisdiction of the subject matter or in abatement
or in bar may be pleaded together, without waiving any defense so
pleaded, but the court may order defenses to jurisdiction of the subject
matter or in abatement to be tried first. An answer containing only
defenses to jurisdiction of the subject matter or in abatement does not
constitute an admission of the facts alleged in the complaint,
counterclaim or third-party complaint.
(d) The facts constituting any affirmative defense, such as payment,
release, satisfaction, discharge, license, fraud, duress, estoppel,
laches, statute of frauds, illegality, that the negligence of a
complaining party contributed in whole or in part to the injury of which he
complains, that an
instrument or transaction
is either void or voidable in point of law, or cannot be recovered upon
by reason of any statute or by reason of nondelivery, want or failure of
consideration in whole or in part, and any defense which by other
affirmative matter seeks to avoid the legal effect of or defeat the
cause of action set forth in the complaint, counterclaim, or third-party
complaint, in whole or in part, and any ground or defense, whether
affirmative or not, which, if not expressly stated in the pleading,
would be likely to take the opposite party by surprise, must be plainly
set forth in the answer or reply.
(Source: P.A. 84-624.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 103
cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Brandon v. Bonell, 858 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
Brandon v. Bonell, 858 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “I pointed out that assuming, arguendo, such a claim existed at common law, it still should be pled as a separate count, as required by section 2-613(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) (West 2004)). By ferreting through the counts of the complaint in the case…”
Broadnax v. Morrow, 762 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “735 ILCS 5/2-613 (West 1998). The Code states, "[a] bad alternative does not affect a good one.”
Nadhir v. Salomon, 2011 IL App (1st) 110851 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Counterclaims are controlled by section 2-608 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-608 (West 2010)), whereas affirmative defenses are controlled by section 2-613 (735 ILCS 5/2-613 (West 2008)). In small-claims cases such as this one, which are designed to be less formal…”
Bosch v. NorthShore Univ. Health Sys., 2019 IL App (1st) 190070 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 735 ILCS 5/2-613(b) (West 2018) (permitting alternative pleading).”
In re Marriage of Benson, 2015 IL App (4th) 140682 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “2d 48, 52 (2003); 735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) (West 2012). Section 2-613(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that affirmative defenses must be plainly set forth in the answer.”
Kainrath v. Grider, 2018 IL App (1st) 172270 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “But the court held that this did not render the plaintiffs' claims "meritless" under the Act, because "[a] successful affirmative defense merely 'avoid[s] the legal effect of or defeat[s] the cause of action set forth in the complaint' " and in fact "rests upon the idea that…”
Hanley v. City of Chicago, 795 N.E.2d 808 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Defendant did not raise the section 2-201 discretionary immunity defense in its answer to plaintiff's complaint. Generally, in order to avoid surprise to the opposite party, an affirmative defense must be set out completely in a party's answer to a complaint and failure to do so…”
LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cypress Creek 1, LP, 950 N.E.2d 1109 (Ill. 2011). “735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) (West 2006). Even if a lien has priority over another, that fact does not "avoid" or "defeat" the lien creditors' foreclosure action, it would mean only that both were in line for payment behind LaSalle.”
Ryan v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 120005 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Given that an affirmative defense simply allows a defendant to “avoid the legal effect of or defeat the cause of action set forth in the complaint,” (735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) (West 2010)), this is an open question that must be resolved in another case.”
Myers v. Levy, 808 N.E.2d 1139 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “See 735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) (West 2002) ("each [cause of action] shall be separately designated and numbered").”
Felzak v. Hruby, 855 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Assuming, arguendo, that it were, it still should be pled as a separate count as required by section 2-613(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) (West 2004)). The majority subverts the rule of procedure that requires parties to plead "as many causes of action *…”
Craig v. Zink, 2016 IL App (4th) 150939 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “¶ 23 The Estate asserts the trial court erred in evaluating its pleadings under the strict pleading requirements of the Civil Code (see 735 ILCS 5/2-613, 2-608 (West 2014)) rather than the more relaxed pleading standards typically applied during probate proceedings.”
— 735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) — 15 cases
Brandon v. Bonell, 858 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “I pointed out that assuming, arguendo, such a claim existed at common law, it still should be pled as a separate count, as required by section 2-613(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) (West 2004)). By ferreting through the counts of the complaint in the case…”
Myers v. Levy, 808 N.E.2d 1139 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “See 735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) (West 2002) ("each [cause of action] shall be separately designated and numbered").”
Felzak v. Hruby, 855 N.E.2d 202 (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “Assuming, arguendo, that it were, it still should be pled as a separate count as required by section 2-613(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-613(a) (West 2004)). The majority subverts the rule of procedure that requires parties to plead "as many causes of action *…”
Eads v. Heritage Enter., Inc., 757 N.E.2d 107 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
Ivancicts v. Griffith, 2017 IL App (4th) 170028 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
— 735 ILCS 5/2-613(b) — 12 cases
Bosch v. NorthShore Univ. Health Sys., 2019 IL App (1st) 190070 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “See 735 ILCS 5/2-613(b) (West 2018) (permitting alternative pleading).”
Broadnax v. Morrow, 762 N.E.2d 1152 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “735 ILCS 5/2-613 (West 1998). The Code states, "[a] bad alternative does not affect a good one.”
Finn v. Proj. Resource Solutions, LLC, 2024 IL App (1st) 221016 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
Gaylor v. Campion, Curran, Rausch, Gummerson & Dunlop, P.C., 2012 IL App (2d) 110718 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Bulatovic v. Dobritchanin, 625 N.E.2d 26 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993).
— 735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) — 58 cases
In re Marriage of Benson, 2015 IL App (4th) 140682 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “2d 48, 52 (2003); 735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) (West 2012). Section 2-613(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that affirmative defenses must be plainly set forth in the answer.”
Kainrath v. Grider, 2018 IL App (1st) 172270 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “But the court held that this did not render the plaintiffs' claims "meritless" under the Act, because "[a] successful affirmative defense merely 'avoid[s] the legal effect of or defeat[s] the cause of action set forth in the complaint' " and in fact "rests upon the idea that…”
Nadhir v. Salomon, 2011 IL App (1st) 110851 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Counterclaims are controlled by section 2-608 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-608 (West 2010)), whereas affirmative defenses are controlled by section 2-613 (735 ILCS 5/2-613 (West 2008)). In small-claims cases such as this one, which are designed to be less formal…”
Hanley v. City of Chicago, 795 N.E.2d 808 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “Defendant did not raise the section 2-201 discretionary immunity defense in its answer to plaintiff's complaint. Generally, in order to avoid surprise to the opposite party, an affirmative defense must be set out completely in a party's answer to a complaint and failure to do so…”
LaSalle Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cypress Creek 1, LP, 950 N.E.2d 1109 (Ill. 2011). “735 ILCS 5/2-613(d) (West 2006). Even if a lien has priority over another, that fact does not "avoid" or "defeat" the lien creditors' foreclosure action, it would mean only that both were in line for payment behind LaSalle.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|