In Re Marriage of Roepenack, 966 N.E.2d 1024

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Roepenack, 966 N.E.2d 1024 (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. 2012).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Chad T. Roepenack. Respondent-Appellee: Kathleen L. Roepenack.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a marital settlement agreement (MSA) can be vacated under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 as procured by fraud or because it is unconscionable (procedural/substantive unconscionability).
- Whether a business appraisal (hearsay) was properly admitted for purposes of proving fraud/state of mind.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of Kathleen’s 2‑1401 petition. The court upheld vacation of parts of the MSA, finding sufficient evidence of fraudulent concealment/misrepresentation and unconscionability. The business appraisal was properly admitted for limited purposes (state of mind/intent) and its admission was not reversible error.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Evidence showed Chad provided a child‑support worksheet stating 2008 gross income of $100,000 while the later‑filed 2008 joint tax return (filed after dissolution) reflected roughly $211,000. Kathleen was unrepresented at the MSA signing and absent at the prove‑up hearing; she alleged she was misled about business debts/value and did not know of a February 2009 appraisal valuing three franchises at over $1 million. The division of assets was dramatically one‑sided (Chad retaining businesses worth over $1M; Kathleen receiving relatively minimal assets).
- The court applied both procedural and substantive unconscionability principles: procedural defects (lack of counsel/meaningful disclosure, misrepresentations, late filing of tax return) combined with a substantively unfair distribution supported relief under 2‑1401. The appraisal was admitted not for its truth as proof of value but to show Chad’s state of mind and whether he intended to conceal information—permissible non‑hearsay purpose—so its limited admission did not prejudice the appellant.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Full, contemporaneous financial disclosure (tax returns, valuations, corporate statements) is critical before executing MSAs.
- Attorneys should advise clients not to sign MSAs or waive appearances at prove‑up hearings without independent verification of income/business valuations and counsel.
- Appraisals, late tax returns, bank records and evidence of nondisclosure can support 2‑1401 relief when they demonstrate extrinsic fraud or material concealment.
- For defense, document disclosures and communications carefully; include express representations and acknowledgement clauses, but recognize they may not shield an agreement tainted by fraud or deliberate concealment.
- When admitting valuation evidence, consider limiting purpose instructions (state of mind/intent) to reduce hearsay challenges.