In re Marriage of Duda

Overview

This appeal concerns the enforceability of a premarital agreement executed in 2007. The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court's declaratory judgment finding the agreement valid, holding that the wife failed to establish unconscionability under section 7(a)(2) of the Illinois Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (750 ILCS 10/7). The court emphasized that post-1990 agreements are governed exclusively by the statutory framework, not common law standards.

Key Facts

• Parties married July 7, 2007; premarital agreement executed June 27, 2007 (10 days before wedding)
• Wife (Agnes) was a Polish immigrant who arrived in 2004 on a student visa; English was not her first language
• Wife lived with husband for three years before marriage and worked for his mother's Polish travel agency
• Wife retained a Polish-speaking attorney (Koczwara) who spent 2.25 hours on the matter, translated the agreement paragraph-by-paragraph, and made minor changes
• Husband provided detailed financial disclosure showing substantial premarital assets
• Wife's disclosed net nonmarital assets were approximately $38,000
• Wife testified she believed the agreement was "another form to sign" and felt she had no choice

Procedural History

Wife filed for dissolution in Cook County Circuit Court (Case No. 23 D 2362). Husband filed a petition for declaratory judgment under 735 ILCS 5/2-701 seeking enforcement of the premarital agreement. After an evidentiary hearing on June 14, 2024, Judge Andrea Webber granted the petition, finding the agreement valid except for the maintenance provision. Wife's motion to reconsider was denied with Rule 304(a) language. Appeal to the First District Appellate Court, Fifth Division.

Holdings

1. Primary Holding: The premarital agreement is valid and enforceable. Wife failed to prove unconscionability under 750 ILCS 10/7(a)(2) because she could not establish all three required elements: (i) lack of fair and reasonable disclosure, (ii) absence of written waiver, and (iii) lack of adequate knowledge of husband's finances. Standard of Review: De novo for contract interpretation; manifest weight of the evidence for factual findings.
2. Secondary Holding: The common law "penury" and "fair and reasonable" standards do not apply to agreements executed after January 1, 1990. Courts cannot invalidate post-1990 premarital agreements merely because enforcement results in disproportionate asset allocation.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 10/7(a)(2): To prove unconscionability, the challenging party must establish the agreement was unconscionable at execution AND prove all three disclosure-related elements (lack of fair disclosure, no written waiver, no adequate knowledge)
• "Fair and reasonable" disclosure requires less than complete disclosure; focuses on information disclosed, not timing of disclosure (In re Marriage of Woodrum, 2018 IL App (3d) 170369)
• The Premarital Agreement Act eliminated common law requirements of fairness, reasonableness, and penury analysis
• Cohabitation and familiarity with spouse's lifestyle can establish "adequate knowledge" under section 7(a)(2)(iii)
• In re Marriage of Barnes, 324 Ill. App. 3d 514: One party's agreement to marry constitutes sufficient consideration for financial concessions

Practical Implications

• For drafting: Ensure detailed written financial disclosures are attached to the agreement; the disclosure need not be "full" but must be "fair and reasonable"
• For challenging agreements: Arguments based on disproportionate outcomes or "penury" are insufficient post-1990; focus must be on procedural defects under section 7(a)(2)
• Language barriers: Retaining counsel who speaks the client's native language and translates the agreement can defeat procedural unconscionability claims
• Timing: Short timeframes between signing and wedding are not dispositive; no statutory minimum waiting period exists
• Cohabitation evidence: Pre-marital cohabitation can be used to establish adequate knowledge of the other party's finances

Limitations/Caveats

• This is a Rule 23 order with limited precedential value; may be cited only for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1)
• The circuit court struck the maintenance waiver provision as unconscionable and noncompliant with law, but the appellate court did not analyze this issue—this aspect may be dicta or simply unreviewable
• The court distinguished In re Marriage of Dimitrov (2024 IL App (1st) 231794-U) involving a postnuptial agreement with threats and coercion
• Wife made no argument under section 7(a)(1) regarding voluntariness, limiting the scope of review