In re Marriage of Sanfilippo

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Sanfilippo, No. 1-24-1794, 2025 IL App (1st) 241794-U (1st Dist. Sept. 29, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential). Petitioner–Appellee: Linda Sanfilippo. Respondent–Appellant: David Sanfilippo.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated into a dissolution judgment could be set aside for respondent’s alleged mental incompetence at the time of agreement;
2) Whether the trial court violated the dissolution/statutory requirements (e.g., findings on values/classification of property) when entering judgment;
3) Whether the MSA was unconscionable or procured by fraud/coercion; and
4) Whether respondent was denied his right to present his case on appeal (procedural/preservation issues including absence of a court reporter).

- Holding / Outcome
The appellate court affirmed the Cook County circuit court: the dissolution judgment incorporating the MSA was upheld. Respondent failed to prove incompetence or other grounds (fraud/coercion/unconscionability) to invalidate the agreement, and there was no reversible procedural error.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Settlement-vacatur standard: an agreement incorporated by the court can be set aside only on grounds such as fraudulent misrepresentation, coercion, incompetence, gross disparity in bargaining power, or newly discovered evidence. The trial court’s finding that the MSA was fair, reasonable, not unconscionable, and voluntarily entered controls unless overturned.
- Factual record: at the April 25 prove-up the parties were examined on the record, both testified they entered the agreement freely, denied impairment, and signed a written Certification/Stipulation confirming no contested issues. The trial court expressly found voluntariness.
- Timing and preservation: respondent’s later change of counsel and post-judgment motions (including psychiatric evidence) did not overcome the original record and court findings. The appellate court concluded respondent did not meet his burden to show clinical incompetence sufficient to void the agreement. Challenges to alleged statutory deficiency (values/classification) and the absence of a reporter/bystander issues did not show reversible error.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Secure a robust on-the-record prove-up: have the parties sworn, question them on voluntariness, capacity, and full disclosure; obtain signed written certifications; and ensure a court reporter is present or an agreed written record is filed.
- If attacking an MSA, press timely pre-judgment objections or immediately move to vacate; post-judgment attacks face a high burden and require persuasive evidence (clinical proof of incapacity, fraud, coercion, or unconscionability).
- Draft MSAs to expressly state valuations, classification of assets, and consideration to minimize later statutory/valuation challenges.
- Be cautious about substitution of counsel and last‑minute recantations—late objections after a formal on-the-record acceptance are difficult to sustain.