In re Marriage of Akbani, 2014 IL App (5th) 130266

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Akbani, 2014 IL App (5th) 130266 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Aug. 26, 2014).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Salim Akbani. Respondent-Appellee: Donna S. Akbani (n/k/a Donna S. Robbins).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a handwritten/typed April 2008 separation and divorce agreement (the 2008 agreement) was enforceable against the parties (challenges: duress, unconscionability, mutual mistake).
- Whether a May 2010 mediation settlement (the 2010 agreement), which included the phrase “Review and consultation with respective attorneys,” was binding when attorney review did not occur.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court correctly found the 2008 agreement binding and enforceable. The court also affirmed that the 2010 agreement was not binding because the attorney-review clause operated as a condition precedent that was not satisfied.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- 2008 agreement: The trial court found both parties competent and financially informed when they signed the 2008 document (petitioner signed April 18; respondent April 22, 2008). The appellate court accepted the trial court’s factual findings and rejected petitioner’s claims of duress, unconscionability, and mutual mistake because the record supported the court’s conclusion that the parties knowingly allocated assets (e.g., respondent: Charlotte condo/business and $135,000 settlement; petitioner: O’Fallon home, St. Louis business).
- 2010 agreement: The mediation-produced handwritten agreement expressly provided for “Review and consultation with respective attorneys.” The court treated that language as a condition precedent to completion of the settlement. Because respondent consulted counsel and declined to sign the typed version and no attorney-review was completed, the condition was unfulfilled; the agreement therefore was unenforceable. The court emphasized the voluntary nature of mediation and that explicit qualification language determines enforceability.

5) Practice implications (for family law attorneys)
- Treat mediation agreements with qualification clauses carefully: language like “subject to attorney review/approval” is a condition precedent—if counsel review/approval is not obtained, the settlement may be unenforceable.
- Obtain clear, contemporaneous signatures and unambiguous integration language if you intend a mediation outcome to be binding immediately (avoid post-mediation ambiguity).
- When negotiating separation agreements, fully document voluntariness and capacity (financial knowledge, independent advice) to defend against later duress/unconscionability claims.
- If enforcing a client’s settlement, be prepared to show that any condition precedent was satisfied; conversely, if opposing enforcement, highlight explicit “review”/“approval” language.