In re Marriage of Dimitrov

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dimitrov, 2024 IL App (1st) 231794-U (1st Dist. Sept. 13, 2024) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Krassimir Dimitrov. Respondent‑Appellee: Tsveta Dimitrova.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a postnuptial agreement is enforceable or is unconscionable (procedural and/or substantive).
- Whether absence of a trial transcript or bystander’s report bars appellate review.
- Proper allocation of burdens on appeal where the record is incomplete.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The circuit court’s ruling that the postnuptial agreement was substantively unconscionable was upheld. The appellate court rejected the claim that the missing transcript compelled dismissal of the appeal.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory/standard framework: IMDMA requires characterization of marital vs. nonmarital property (750 ILCS 5/503); parties may contractually exclude property. Whether a contract is unconscionable is a legal question reviewed de novo. Substantive unconscionability turns on one‑sided, oppressive, or improvident terms.
- Facts/contract analysis: the agreement (signed March 2022) allocated essentially 100% of listed property to Krassimir, while he assumed only limited listed liabilities (~$13K) and the agreement omitted or under‑valued other property/debt (e.g., alleged leased vehicles, unlisted assets). The court found these terms so one‑sided as to be substantively unconscionable.
- Procedural unconscionability: the trial court found adequate consideration and that the wife had access to counsel (a Bulgarian‑speaking attorney who advised against signing), so the agreement was not procedurally unconscionable despite disputed claims of coercion. The court relied on credibility findings.
- Transcript issue: absence of a transcript/bystander’s report did not bar appellate review because the substantive unconscionability determination is a de novo contract review based on the agreement’s terms. However, appellant’s failure to provide a complete record foreclosed reliance on certain factual claims (e.g., the wife’s settlement amount, salary).
- Other points: agreement preserved child support obligations; a fee‑shifting provision penalized challenges to the agreement.

5. Practice implications
- For drafting/postnuptial agreements: fully and accurately list and value all assets and liabilities (including retirement accounts), avoid grossly one‑sided allocations, and expressly address treatment of future earnings and lawsuits to limit later attack for unconscionability.
- For vulnerable/non‑English clients: document independent counsel, translations, and informed decision‑making; mere presence of counsel may not cure substantive unfairness.
- Fee‑shifting/challenge penalties: use caution—clauses making challengers pay both sides’ fees can be viewed as coercive.
- Appellate procedure: litigants must secure transcripts or bystander’s reports or otherwise create an adequate record; appellate courts may still review de novo legal issues but will resolve gaps against the appellant.