In re Marriage of Villadsen

Overview

This case involves post-decree litigation over the division of a husband's IBEW pension via QDRO. After multiple rejected QDROs, the wife filed a petition for attorney fees under Section 508(b) and to enforce the MSA, alleging the husband breached the execution clause by failing to sign a proposed QDRO and failing to waive a 60-day objection period. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of the wife's petition, finding she failed to prove breach of the MSA based on the admitted allegations in the pleadings.

Key Facts

• Parties divorced in 2004; MSA included an execution clause requiring cooperation and a prevailing party fee provision
• Original QDRO (2017) and Amended QDRO (2022) were both rejected by the plan administrator
• Wife (an attorney, self-represented) drafted a proposed second amended QDRO; husband did not sign it
• Wife filed Petition for Rule to Show Cause; husband then retained QDRO counsel at his own expense
• Final QDRO was entered December 2023 and approved by plan administrator in February 2024
• Wife alleged husband refused to waive 60-day objection period, delaying her benefits; husband denied this

Procedural History

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County (No. 01-D-1193), Judge Stephen M. DeRue presiding. Both parties filed competing petitions for attorney fees. The trial court denied both petitions after a hearing based solely on arguments of counsel with no evidentiary presentation. Wife appealed. Second District Appellate Court affirmed.

Holdings

1. Primary Holding: The trial court properly denied the wife's petition because she failed to prove breach of the MSA's execution clause. Standard of Review: De novo (no live testimony; court reviewed same record as trial court).
2. Secondary Holding: Wife's arguments were forfeited due to repeated violations of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h), including reliance on denied allegations as "facts" and failure to present cogent arguments based on admitted evidence.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/508(b): Mandatory attorney fees when noncompliance with court order/judgment is "without compelling cause or justification"
• 750 ILCS 5/502(e): MSA terms incorporated into judgment are enforceable as contract terms and by contempt
• Breach of contract requires: (1) valid contract, (2) plaintiff's performance, (3) defendant's breach, (4) resultant injury
• Denied allegations in pleadings do not establish facts—they create fact issues requiring proof
• Court clarified that ERISA does not require parties' signatures on a QDRO entered by the court
• Rule 341(h): Appellate briefs must present clear arguments based on evidence actually before the trial court

Practical Implications

• Present evidence at hearings: Arguments alone are insufficient; practitioners must introduce testimony or documentary evidence to establish disputed facts
• Admitted allegations only: When proceeding on pleadings, only facts admitted by the opposing party can support relief
• QDRO signatures: A party's signature on a QDRO may not be "necessary or proper" under an execution clause since courts can enter QDROs without party signatures
• Request judicial notice: To rely on facts from other pleadings in the court file, formally request judicial notice
• Appellate briefing: Distinguish between allegations and admitted facts; arguments based on denied allegations will be rejected or forfeited

Limitations/Caveats

• This is a Rule 23 order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and may not be cited as precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1)
• The court's discussion of QDRO signature requirements and the execution clause analysis is tied to the specific facts and procedural posture (no evidence presented)
• The forfeiture holding is case-specific based on briefing deficiencies