In re Marriage of Weeks

Overview

The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court's grant of a section 2-1401 petition vacating a 2012 judgment of dissolution that incorporated an MSA awarding the wife only 17.516% of an $11.3 million marital estate after a 26-year marriage. The court held that "unusual circumstances" justified relaxing the due diligence requirement and that the MSA was substantively unconscionable under the manifest weight standard.

Key Facts

Parties married in 1985; dissolution entered January 6, 2012, in Saline County (neither party resided there)

The entire dissolution process took four business days ; MSA was executed at husband's attorney's office while wife was unrepresented

Neither party knew the value of the marital estate at the time of dissolution

Marital estate valued at minimum $11,326,317 ; wife received $1,984,024.90 (17.516%)

Wife received no income-producing assets, no maintenance, and lost her job and health insurance

Husband told wife "take the deal, it's a f*** good deal" and warned that "attorneys would get all the money"

No evidence of fraud or asset concealment by either party

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Saline County (Judge Thurston). Wife filed a section 2-1401 petition in January 2014. Her second motion for summary judgment on unconscionability was granted in 2020. In Weeks I (2021 IL App (5th) 200043-U), the Fifth District reversed and remanded for further proceedings on due diligence and whether equity required its relaxation. On remand, after extensive evidentiary hearings, the circuit court found wife lacked due diligence but relaxed the requirement based on unusual circumstances, reaffirmed unconscionability, and granted the petition. Husband appealed.

Holdings

Due diligence relaxation: The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in relaxing the due diligence requirement under its equitable powers where "unusual circumstances" made enforcement unjust. ( Abuse of discretion standard, citing Smith v. Airoom, Inc. , 114 Ill. 2d 209 (1986))

Unconscionability: The finding that the MSA was substantively unconscionable was not against the manifest weight of the evidence , as the opposite conclusion was not clearly evident. The court applied the less deferential standard without resolving the dispute over whether abuse of discretion or manifest weight governs post-evidentiary-hearing 2-1401 rulings.

Mandate compliance: The circuit court complied with the appellate mandate; no meaningful distinction exists between "relaxing" and "dispensing with" the due diligence requirement in the case law. (Reviewed de novo )

Legal Principles

735 ILCS 5/2-1401: Invokes equitable powers; due diligence requirement is "not inflexible" — courts may relax it when justice and fairness require. Smith v. Airoom ; In re Marriage of Johnson , 339 Ill. App. 3d 237 (2003).

Unconscionability standard: Proven by clear and convincing evidence ; assessed at time agreement was made. An MSA may be "so one-sided and oppressive" as to be unconscionable without proving procedural unconscionability. In re Marriage of Callahan , 2013 IL App (1st) 113751; In re Marriage of Stoker , 2021 IL App (5th) 200301.

750 ILCS 5/503(d): Marital property must be divided in "just proportions."

European Tanspa, Inc. v. Shader , 242 Ill. App. 3d 103 (1993): "Other unusual circumstances which made enforcement of the judgment unjust" can support equitable relief.

Practical Implications

Unconscionability alone can justify relaxing due diligence: Practitioners challenging stale MSAs should emphasize the substantive one-sidedness of the agreement as an independent basis for equitable relief even where the petitioner's delay is not excusable.

Document "unusual circumstances" thoroughly: Speed of proceedings, lack of counsel, lack of asset valuation, and pressure tactics are all factors courts will weigh.

Business debt ≠ personal debt for unconscionability: Operational floor-plan financing does not offset an inequitable distribution; courts focus on post-agreement economic reality, not internal business leverage.

No separate maintenance analysis required: A court evaluating unconscionability may consider a maintenance waiver as one circumstance without conducting a full statutory maintenance calculation.

Defending MSAs: Practitioners should ensure contemporaneous asset valuations, independent counsel for both parties, and reasonable timelines to insulate agreements from later challenge.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order — it is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). The court expressly declined to resolve whether abuse of discretion or manifest weight of the evidence is the proper standard for post-evidentiary-hearing 2-1401 rulings, finding the result identical under either standard. The court's statement that the circumstances were "patently unconscionable" (¶ 27) appears to go beyond the holding and constitutes dicta . The extreme facts — 17.5% allocation of an $11M+ estate, no counsel, four-day process — limit the case's applicability to less egregious disparities.