In re Marriage of Amyette, 2023 IL App (3d) 200195

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Amyette, 2023 IL App (3d) 200195 - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois Third District Court's decision in In re Marriage of Amyette provides a crucial roadmap for practitioners on both sides of prenuptial agreements, emphasizing the importance of timing, equity, and undisclosed intentions in contractual execution. The court's opinion holds that if a prenup is executed under pressure with one party not fully understanding its terms, it can be considered unconscionable and subject to equitable remedies, such as resulting trusts or unjust enrichment.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet.

If you're advising high-net-worth clients on prenuptial agreements in Illinois, the Third District's decision in In re Marriage of Amyette should be required reading. This case is a masterclass in how a seemingly airtight prenup can unravel when equity, timing, and undisclosed intentions collide. And if you're on the other side—representing a spouse who signed under pressure or whose contributions were quietly absorbed—this opinion hands you a blueprint for attack.

The Setup: A Prenup Signed Days Before the Wedding

William and Jeanne Amyette executed a prenuptial agreement just days before their marriage. The agreement attempted to accomplish two primary objectives: waive spousal maintenance and designate the East Moline residence as William's nonmarital property.

Standard stuff on paper. Catastrophic in execution.

Here's where it gets interesting for practitioners: Jeanne read the agreement but didn't fully understand its terms. She had no independent counsel. And critically, she had just sold her Davenport house for $40,000—proceeds that would soon vanish into William's family loan on the very residence the prenup claimed as his alone.

The trial court saw through it. The appellate court affirmed the key findings. William's strategic "oversight" became his undoing.

The Kill Shot: Undisclosed Intent and Fiduciary Betrayal

The court's analysis hinged on a devastating factual finding: William had a premeditated, undisclosed plan to use Jeanne's nonmarital funds while retaining sole title to the residence. He never placed her name on the deed despite an understanding—or at minimum, her reasonable expectation—that he would.

This isn't just bad optics. This is the kind of conduct that transforms a valid contract into an unconscionable one. The court characterized William's actions as a breach of the fiduciary duty that exists between engaged parties negotiating a prenuptial agreement.

For those keeping score at home: Illinois courts will absolutely pierce your prenup if they find you exploited the other party's trust while pocketing their assets.

The Doctrine Arsenal: What the Court Deployed

The trial court didn't rely on a single theory—it stacked them:


    
Unconscionability: The maintenance waiver and property designation failed the smell test given the circumstances of execution and the disparity in understanding.
    
Resulting Trust / Unjust Enrichment: Jeanne's $40,000 contribution created an equitable ownership interest in the residence, regardless of what the title said.
    
Tenancy in Common: The court awarded Jeanne at least $40,000 in equity/credit—a direct reimbursement for her pre-marital funds that built William's supposed "nonmarital" asset.


The appellate court affirmed these core findings. The prenup's attempt to characterize the East Moline house as William's nonmarital property? Unenforceable as applied. The maintenance waiver? Same result.

Strategic Takeaways for Illinois Family Law Practitioners

For Drafting Attorneys: The Timing Problem Is Real

Prenuptial agreements executed days before a wedding invite heightened scrutiny. Full stop. If your client insists on last-minute execution, document everything: written disclosure of all assets and liabilities, explicit encouragement to seek independent counsel, and a signed acknowledgment that the other party had meaningful time to review and understand the terms.

Better yet: build in a mandatory waiting period. Thirty days minimum. Ninety if you want to sleep at night.

For Drafting Attorneys: Address Pre-Marital Contributions Explicitly

If one party is contributing pre-marital funds toward acquisition of property, the agreement must state—with surgical precision—whether those contributions create:


    
A separate reimbursement right
    
A resulting trust interest
    
A title change obligation
    
Or nothing at all (with explicit waiver language)


Include mechanics. Recording requirements. Deed transfer timelines. Bank account documentation protocols. Vague intentions become litigation fodder.

For Litigation Attorneys: Follow the Money, Then Follow the Silence

If you're representing a spouse who contributed pre-marital assets that were absorbed into the other party's "nonmarital" property, Amyette gives you a roadmap. Trace the funds. Document the deposits. Subpoena the communications. And hammer the fiduciary duty angle—engaged parties owe each other honesty in prenup negotiations, and courts will punish those who exploit that trust.

For All Practitioners: Contemporaneous Documentation Is Your Shield

Maintain records of every agreement about use of sale proceeds, every bank deposit, every communication about title and ownership. In Amyette, the absence of documentation about William's alleged promise to add Jeanne to the title became evidence of his undisclosed intent. Your client's contemporaneous paper trail—or lack thereof—will determine whether they're the hero or the villain in the court's narrative.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Discovery in the Digital Age

Here's where my practice areas converge in ways that keep opposing counsel awake at night.

In cases like Amyette, the critical evidence often lives in text messages, emails, and financial app records. A spouse who promised to add the other to title likely said so in writing—somewhere. A spouse who planned to retain sole ownership while accepting the other's funds may have communicated that intent to a parent, a friend, or a financial advisor.

Digital forensics isn't optional in high-stakes prenup litigation. It's the difference between "he said, she said" and "here's the screenshot."

And for those clients who think deleting messages solves the problem: spoliation sanctions are real, and courts draw adverse inferences from destroyed evidence. Your opposition's digital negligence is your leverage in discovery.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Amyette stands for a simple proposition that sophisticated practitioners already know: prenuptial agreements are only as strong as the process that created them and the conduct that followed.

A prenup signed under time pressure, without independent counsel, by a party who didn't fully understand the terms, and then exploited by the other party to absorb pre-marital contributions while retaining sole title? That's not a contract. That's a liability.

Illinois courts will apply equitable doctrines and unconscionability analysis when procedural fairness, disclosure, or fiduciary concerns exist—even if the prenup contains broad waiver language. The agreement is the starting point, not the finish line.

If you're drafting, build the fortress before the wedding. If you're litigating, find the cracks in the foundation.

Either way, the judge already knows what good-faith negotiation looks like—and what exploitation smells like. Make sure your client is on the right side of that line.



Your opposition is already losing ground. If you're facing a prenuptial agreement dispute in Illinois—whether you're enforcing or attacking—strategic counsel makes the difference between walking away whole and watching your client's assets disappear into an equitable remedy. Book a consultation now before the other side figures out what they're up against.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.