IICLE Family Law Flash Points - December 2013

3.         Unconscionable finding of marital settlement agreement upheld.  The Appellate Court has upheld a trial court’s finding that a marital settlement agreement entered at a prove-up where husband was represented by counsel and wife appeared pro se was unconscionable. Under the agreement wife received $300,000, some accounts, cars and jewelry with a combined value of $1 million. She also received child support at $2,000 per month and waived off on receiving maintenance. Wife then filed a 2-1401 petition alleging the agreement was unconscionable and procured by coercion and fraud.  The court conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing wherein it heard substantial testimony regarding husband’s annual income (in excess of $1 million), his receipt of substantial shares of stock in Accenture (which were sold during the marriage for $8.65 million), and the acquisition of significant real estate holdings during the marriage.  Furthermore, personal financial statements prepared prior to the prove-up indicated husband had a net worth of upwards of $30 million.  As a result, the trial court properly found the agreement was substantively unconscionable and the division of assets one-sided in light of the evidence that showed the parties’ disparity in future income and earning potential and the lack of a maintenance award.  In re the Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639.

4.         Finding of transmutation of non-marital property to marital property upheld.  Husband received 441,044 Accenture Founder shares of stock prior to the date of the marriage.  During the marriage, husband sold various shares over time and deposited those proceeds into various joint accounts.  Funds from the joint accounts were subsequently used to purchase significant real estate holdings during the marriage, the vast majority being held in husband’s sole name and which he claimed was his non-marital property. Husband argued that the accounts could still be considered non-marital if the accounts were used only as a conduit for transfer of the funds but he failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that this was the case.  There was no evidence of intent to keep the assets separate; wife’s name was on most of the business and personal checking accounts; and there was no evidence if any other funds went in and out of those accounts.  Additionally, the proceeds from the stock sales were not immediately withdrawn from the account, but sometimes remained for substantial periods of time.  Therefore, the trial court’s finding that transmutation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. In re the Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639.