<em>In re</em> Marriage of Tronsrue, 2025 IL 130596

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Tronsrue, 2025 IL 130596.
- Elsa M. Tronsrue (petitioner/appellee) v. George M. Tronsrue III (respondent/appellant).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether an Illinois circuit court could enforce a 1992 marital settlement provision requiring a husband to pay the wife a percentage of his federal military/Veterans Affairs (VA) disability payments when federal law (38 U.S.C. § 5301 and related authority) generally prohibits assignment of such benefits.
- Whether a party may collaterally attack a final dissolution judgment and associated settlement provision on the ground that it purportedly divested or assigned federally protected benefits.
- Whether contempt and fee awards for nonpayment of those agreed payments were proper.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court and circuit court. The court held the trial court had jurisdiction over the dissolution and enforcement proceedings; the settlement provision was not void for lack of jurisdiction; the husband’s petition to terminate the payments was properly dismissed; the contempt finding and attorney-fee award were affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdictional posture: Because the family court had personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over the marital dissolution when the parties entered the settlement and judgment, the parties could be held to their contractual agreement in post-judgment enforcement proceedings.
- Federal preemption/anti-assignment: The Court rejected the appellant’s Supremacy Clause/§ 5301 argument as a basis to treat the judgment provision as void ab initio. The majority distinguished (a) a court’s ability to adjudicate or order the assignment of VA benefits from (b) enforcing a binding agreement between spouses requiring one spouse to pay funds to the other. The ruling recognizes limits on state courts’ power to compel the VA to pay, but permits state enforcement against the veteran personally for breach of a voluntary agreement.
- Collateral attack: A party may not collaterally attack a final decree on the ground that the decree conflicts with federal law where the issuing court had jurisdiction.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- Draft marital settlement language carefully: state expressly that payments are voluntary obligations of the veteran, not assignments of VA benefits, and include indemnity, security, and alternative-collection provisions (liens on other assets, set-offs, or agreed offsets).
- Counsel should advise clients that the VA may refuse to honor direct-pay requests and state courts cannot force the VA; however they can enforce a spouse’s personal obligation (including contempt) and obtain fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b).
- When litigating or defending enforcement, focus on jurisdictional posture, clear proof of agreement/nonpayment, and remedies other than seeking direct VA garnishment. Consider negotiated protections for the payor and payee at dissolution to minimize later disputes.