In re Marriage of Wheelock, 2025 IL App (2d) 240571-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Wheelock, 2025 IL App (2d) 240571-U - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois Second District Appellate Court's recent ruling in In re Marriage of Wheelock establishes that attorneys handling high-asset divorces should specify the division method for defined-benefit pensions in the judgment to avoid future judicial intervention. The court ruled that a 2001 QILDRO, which failed to establish the marital portion calculation, was not final and could be enforced or corrected, highlighting the importance of drafting standards that prevent such strategic failures.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot when they realize their client's 1999 marital settlement agreement left the pension division wide open for judicial interpretation—twenty-six years later.

The Second District Appellate Court just handed down In re Marriage of Wheelock, 2025 IL App (2d) 240571-U, and if you're handling high-asset divorces in Illinois, this case is a masterclass in what happens when attorneys get lazy with pension language. The court affirmed the trial court's authority to impose the Hunt formula on a defined-benefit pension that the original judgment failed to properly allocate. Your opposition thought they had finality. They were wrong.

The Strategic Failure That Cost Respondent Everything

David Wheelock's Lake Zurich fire pension became the battlefield because someone—likely multiple someones over two decades—failed to lock down the marital portion calculation at dissolution. The 1999 agreement awarded the petitioner "50% of the balance as of April 26, 1999." That language sounds definitive until you realize it says absolutely nothing about how to calculate that balance for a defined-benefit pension that wouldn't pay out for years.

The 2001 QILDRO? Prepared by petitioner, setting a monthly amount and lump-sum refund figure. But here's the fatal flaw: it never established the actual marital portion calculation. The court characterized this as "silent"—and silence in pension division is an invitation for judicial intervention.

Why "Silent" Judgments Are Strategic Landmines

Illinois courts apply contract interpretation principles to marital settlement agreements, looking to effectuate the parties' intent. The Appellate Court cited Kehoe and Allen for this foundational principle. But defined-benefit pensions create unique problems: the ultimate value depends on future contingencies—continued service, final average salary, plan amendments, cost-of-living adjustments.

When a judgment fails to specify the allocation method, courts retain discretion to select one. The two primary approaches are:


Present-value awards: Calculate the pension's current worth and offset it against other assets at dissolution.
Hunt reserved-jurisdiction approach: Defer division until the pension becomes payable, applying a coverture fraction (marital years of service divided by total years of service multiplied by 50%).


The Wheelock court applied Hunt. Respondent's res judicata argument collapsed because no final, definitive QILDRO allocating the marital portion had ever been entered. The 2001 document was incomplete. The trial court's amended QILDRO—retroactive and prospective—stood.

The Res Judicata Trap That Didn't Spring

Respondent argued that prior litigation barred petitioner's enforcement action. The Appellate Court disagreed. Res judicata requires a final judgment on the merits. A QILDRO that fails to establish the marital portion calculation isn't final—it's a placeholder waiting to be corrected.

This distinction matters for practitioners: if your client received a QILDRO years ago that doesn't specify the formula or leaves the marital fraction ambiguous, the door remains open for enforcement or correction. Conversely, if you're defending against such a motion, you need more than "we already litigated this." You need proof of a final, complete allocation.

Drafting Standards That Prevent This Disaster

The practice implications from Wheelock are non-negotiable for any attorney handling pension division:

1. Specify the Division Method in the Judgment

State explicitly whether you're using present-value offset or reserved-jurisdiction. If reserved-jurisdiction, include the formula. "The marital portion shall be calculated using the Hunt formula: (months of marriage during which pension benefits accrued ÷ total months of pension accrual) × 50% of the monthly benefit" leaves nothing to interpretation.

2. Attach the QDRO/QILDRO to the Judgment

Draft the order before finalization. Have the pension administrator pre-approve it. Make it an exhibit to the judgment. This eliminates the "silent" problem entirely.

3. Designate Responsibility for Preparation

The Wheelock petitioner prepared the 2001 QILDRO. Twenty-plus years later, the court found it deficient. Assign preparation responsibility to the party with the pension (or their counsel) and require the other party's approval before entry. Build in deadlines with enforcement mechanisms.

4. Address Survivorship and Beneficiary Designations

A QILDRO that's silent on survivor benefits creates another battlefield. Specify whether the alternate payee receives a survivor annuity, and if so, what form.

5. Include Jurisdiction-Retention Language

Even if you've specified the formula, include explicit language: "The court retains jurisdiction to enter, modify, or correct any QILDRO necessary to effectuate this division." This prevents arguments that the court lacks authority to fix errors.

The Tech-Law Intersection: Discovery Implications

Pension disputes increasingly involve digital evidence. Benefit statements, plan documents, and service records exist in employer databases and personal email accounts. When a party claims ignorance about pension terms or disputes the marital portion calculation, forensic examination of their digital communications can reveal what they knew and when.

Subpoena the pension administrator's records directly. Don't rely on your opposing party's production. If they've been communicating with HR about retirement projections, those emails are discoverable. If they've run calculations on personal devices, those files may be recoverable.

Cyber negligence in maintaining personal financial records can become leverage. A party who "can't find" benefit statements from the marriage may have deleted them—and deletion patterns tell their own story.

The Urgency of Immediate Action

Wheelock involved a 1999 dissolution. The amended QILDRO was ordered in 2024 or 2025. That's a quarter-century of uncertainty, litigation costs, and missed opportunities for both parties. The respondent lost the ability to plan his retirement with certainty. The petitioner waited decades for her share.

If your client has a QILDRO from years ago that seems incomplete, review it now. If you're drafting a dissolution judgment involving a defined-benefit pension, treat the pension division documents as the most important exhibits in the case.

The trial court in Wheelock had the authority to fix a twenty-year-old mistake. Your opposition may not realize that same authority exists in your case. Use it.

Consult Before Your Opposition Does

Pension division errors don't age well. They compound. They create leverage for the party willing to act. If you're reviewing an old judgment or drafting a new one, the time to get this right is before the other side realizes the vulnerability.

Book a consult now. Your opposition is already losing—they just don't know it yet.

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.