In re Marriage of Steward

Overview

The Second District affirmed the trial court's order voiding a 1986 prenuptial agreement, the award of $4,410/month in indefinite maintenance to the wife, and the classification of certain property as marital. The court also rejected the husband's procedural due process claims. This is a Rule 23 order with limited precedential value.

Key Facts

35-year marriage (1986–2021); wife was pregnant and unrepresented by counsel when she signed the prenuptial agreement two days before the wedding

Prenuptial agreement limited wife to $1,000/month maintenance and classified all property acquired in either party's name alone as non-marital

At signing, husband's net worth was ~$5.2 million; wife's was ~$35,800

At trial, wife was 69, had a serious heart condition rendering her unemployable, received $960/month in garnished Social Security, had $10,000 in checking, no retirement, and a $4,000 car

Husband's personal bank deposits averaged $19,000/month despite claiming $75,000 annual salary; trial court found him not credible

The homestead property wife would receive under the agreement was encumbered by liens exceeding its value

Agreement predated the Illinois Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (1990), so common law governed

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Kane County, No. 19-D-1107 (Judges Cruz, Petersen, and Johnson presiding at various stages). Wife filed for dissolution in 2019. Husband sought enforcement of the prenuptial agreement. Wife filed an amended petition to declare the agreement unconscionable. After a combined hearing on the prenuptial agreement and divorce trial in July 2021, the court voided the agreement (September 2021) and entered a dissolution judgment (November 2021). Post-trial motions were denied October 2023 after extensive delay. Husband appealed to the Second District.

Holdings

Prenuptial agreement properly voided. Under the common law standard (manifest weight of the evidence review), enforcement would create a condition of penury , and the agreement was not fair and reasonable. Distinguished Burgess and Berger .

Maintenance award affirmed. Although the trial court failed to make specific findings under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-2) , the record adequately supported review. The $4,410/month indefinite award was not an abuse of discretion given the income disparity and credibility findings.

No procedural due process violation. Under the invited error doctrine , husband's counsel stipulated to combined proceedings and cannot challenge that procedure on appeal. Delay and disparagement arguments were forfeited for inadequate record and analysis.

Marital property classifications affirmed. Townhomes purchased during marriage, land held by a corporation formed during marriage, and farm equipment were all properly classified as marital under the rebuttable presumption (manifest weight standard).

Legal Principles

Pre-Act prenuptial agreements are governed by common law requiring: (1) no unforeseen penury; (2) full knowledge, no fraud/duress/coercion; (3) fair and reasonable terms. Warren v. Warren , 169 Ill. App. 3d 226; In re Marriage of Murphy , 359 Ill. App. 3d 289.

750 ILCS 5/504(b-2) : Requires specific factual findings when deviating from maintenance guidelines, but failure to make them is not reversible error if the record permits appellate review. In re Marriage of Galowich , 2019 IL App (1st) 162270-U; Blum v. Koster , 235 Ill. 2d 21.

Invited error doctrine bars a party from inducing a procedural course then challenging it on appeal.

Rebuttable presumption that all property acquired during marriage is marital, regardless of title. In re Marriage of Schmitt , 391 Ill. App. 3d 1010. Doubts resolved in favor of marital classification.

Court may take judicial notice of Secretary of State business entity records.

Practical Implications

Pre-Act prenuptial agreements remain vulnerable to challenge where the disadvantaged spouse's circumstances have deteriorated dramatically—practitioners should assess penury and fairness at both execution and enforcement

Maintenance findings under § 504(b-2) : While the court excused the lack of specific findings here, practitioners should insist on detailed findings to protect the record and avoid appellate risk

Stipulations on the record matter : Counsel who agree to combined proceedings or fail to object waive later due process challenges—be vigilant about preserving objections

Credibility is king at trial : The husband's evasive testimony about income and assets was devastating; ensure clients are prepared to testify credibly and produce supporting documentation

Property classification : Parties claiming property is non-marital must affirmatively prove it with evidence of non-marital funding sources; mere testimony found not credible is insufficient

Counterargument : This case is distinguishable where the disadvantaged spouse has meaningful assets, employability, or received independent legal counsel before signing

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(b), making it not precedential except in the limited circumstances of Rule 23(e)(1). The court's discussion of unconscionability in the common law prenuptial context (¶ 57) is dicta , as the court expressly declined to reach that issue. The holding that failure to comply with § 504(b-2) is non-reversible when the record permits review relies in part on an unpublished decision ( Galowich ). The case involved unique facts—a 35-year marriage, an elderly spouse with serious health issues, and a pre-1990 agreement—limiting its applicability to more typical prenuptial disputes.