In re Marriage of Harnack, 2025 IL App (1st) 240835

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Harnack, 2025 IL App (1st) 240835 - The article analyzes In re Marriage of Harnack, a 2025 Illinois appellate case in which a husband was incarcerated for civil contempt after years of concealing assets owed to his ex-wife under a dissolution judgment. A key legal point is that the burden falls entirely on the contemnor to prove impossibility of compliance with "definite and explicit evidence," and courts will afford heavy deference to trial court credibility findings when a litigant has a documented history of obstruction.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and if your spouse thinks offshore transfers and shell-company shuffles will shield assets from a dissolution judgment, In re Marriage of Harnack just handed you the blueprint for making them regret every wire transfer.

This Rule 23 order from the First District, issued June 24, 2025, isn't binding precedent. But it's a masterclass in what happens when a high-net-worth litigant treats asset concealment like a chess game—and discovers the court has been playing three-dimensional warfare the entire time.

The Facts: A Decade of Financial Obstruction Meets Judicial Patience

Steve Fanady owed Pamela Harnack 120,000 CBOE shares under their dissolution judgment. Instead of complying, he embarked on what the appellate court characterized as years of concealment: international account transfers, entity-to-entity shuffles, and litigation tactics designed to exhaust his ex-wife's resources and patience.

The trial court had seen enough. Fanady was incarcerated for indirect civil contempt—a coercive remedy designed to compel compliance, not punish. When he moved to vacate his incarceration, claiming impossibility, the court denied the motion. The First District affirmed.

The court's language was surgical: Fanady was "the architect of his own predicament." Four prior appeals (Harnack I through IV) had already documented his pattern of obstruction. The credibility findings against him were devastating and unreviewable on appeal.

The Legal Framework: Impossibility Is a High Bar You Won't Clear with Excuses

Civil contempt incarceration serves one purpose: coercion. The moment compliance becomes genuinely impossible—not inconvenient, not expensive, but impossible—the incarceration loses its legal justification.

But here's where sophisticated asset-hiders miscalculate: the burden falls entirely on the contemnor to prove impossibility with "definite and explicit evidence." General assertions won't move the needle. Vague claims about foreign accounts being inaccessible, unsupported by documentation, get dismissed as exactly what they are—delay tactics.

The Harnack court reinforced what experienced family law practitioners already know:


Credibility matters. A litigant who has spent years concealing assets has zero credibility when claiming those assets are suddenly unreachable.
Collateral litigation is not a shield. Fanady tried to use interpleader and partnership disputes to defeat enforcement of his direct obligations. The court wasn't buying it.
Deference to the trial court is nearly absolute. Factual findings about concealment, availability of assets, and the coercive purpose of incarceration are reviewed with heavy deference. If the trial judge doesn't believe you, the appellate court won't rescue you.


Strategic Implications for Judgment Creditors: Offense Wins Championships

If you're representing a spouse owed significant assets under a dissolution judgment, Harnack validates an aggressive enforcement posture:

1. Document everything. The Harnack court relied on years of recorded concealment to sustain incarceration. Every international transfer, every entity restructuring, every evasive discovery response becomes ammunition. Build the narrative of obstruction from day one.

2. Pursue forensic discovery relentlessly. Subpoena financial institutions. Trace cryptocurrency wallets. Engage forensic accountants who understand blockchain analysis and international banking structures. The digital breadcrumbs exist—your job is to find them before they're laundered through another jurisdiction.

3. Contempt is a live option. Courts will sustain coercive incarceration where the contemnor has the means to comply but refuses. Don't be timid about seeking this remedy when the facts support it. Harnack confirms that judges will hold the line.

4. Coordinate international legal mechanisms. If assets have been moved offshore, explore foreign legal cooperation, international receivership, and turnover remedies. The complexity of repatriation doesn't make it impossible—and courts expect sophisticated litigants to pursue sophisticated solutions.

Strategic Implications for Contemnors: Your Only Play Is Genuine Compliance

If you're advising someone facing contempt for non-compliance, the Harnack decision delivers a stark message: half-measures and litigation gamesmanship will not work.

1. Impossibility requires documentary proof. Account statements showing zero balances. Correspondence with foreign institutions explaining legal barriers to repatriation. Expert testimony on foreign law obstacles. Anything less than concrete, specific evidence will be dismissed as self-serving.

2. Credibility is currency you've already spent. If your client has a documented history of concealment, every claim of impossibility will be viewed through that lens. The only path forward is demonstrable, good-faith efforts to comply—not strategic maneuvering.

3. Collateral litigation is not a defense. Interpleader actions, partnership disputes, and third-party claims do not suspend your client's direct obligations under the dissolution judgment. Courts see through this tactic.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Digital Footprints Are Forever

High-net-worth dissolution cases increasingly involve digital asset concealment—cryptocurrency, offshore fintech accounts, international wire transfers routed through multiple jurisdictions. The Harnack pattern of concealment would have left digital forensic evidence at every stage.

For judgment creditors, this means engaging experts who understand blockchain analysis, metadata extraction, and international financial data requests. For potential contemnors, it means understanding that digital transactions are never truly anonymous—and that forensic discovery in family law proceedings has become remarkably sophisticated.

Cyber negligence—failure to secure financial data, use of unsecured communications to discuss asset transfers, metadata embedded in financial documents—creates discovery leverage that didn't exist a decade ago. If your opposition thinks they've hidden assets, they've likely left a digital trail that a competent forensic team can reconstruct.

The Precedential Limitation—And Why It Doesn't Matter

Harnack is a Rule 23 order, meaning it lacks binding precedential value except in narrow circumstances. But experienced practitioners understand that Rule 23 orders reveal how appellate courts are thinking about recurring issues. The reasoning here—deference to trial court credibility findings, strict burden on contemnors claiming impossibility, rejection of collateral litigation as a defense—reflects settled Illinois law.

When you're arguing contempt enforcement or defending against it, Harnack provides a roadmap even if it's not citable as binding authority. The principles it applies are well-established; the application to sophisticated asset concealment is instructive.

The Bottom Line: Courts Are Done Playing Games

The Harnack decision reflects judicial exhaustion with litigants who treat dissolution judgments as suggestions rather than orders. The court's characterization of Fanady as "the architect of his own predicament" signals zero tolerance for manufactured complexity designed to frustrate enforcement.

If you're holding a judgment against a spouse who thinks international transfers and entity structures will shield assets indefinitely, this case confirms your enforcement tools remain sharp. If you're advising someone who has been playing that game, the clock is running out.

The judge already knows when someone is hiding assets. The question is whether you're positioned to prove it—or whether you're the one who needs to start demonstrating genuine compliance before incarceration becomes your reality.

Your opposition just blinked. Book a consultation now—because the enforcement mechanisms validated in Harnack require strategic coordination, forensic resources, and litigation experience that most practitioners can't deliver.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.