In re Marriage of Allegra, 2021 IL App (2d) 190819-U

In re Marriage of Allegra, 2021 IL App (2d) 190819-U (Ill. App. Ct. Jan. 14, 2021) (Rule 23(b) — nonprecedential)

Parties
- Petitioner-Appellee: Lisa M. Allegra
- Respondent-Appellant: Robert Allegra

Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the husband’s motion to bifurcate (enter judgment on allocation/grounds while reserving financial issues) because he was incarcerated and thus allegedly unable to participate or pay support.
- Whether the trial court erred in dividing property based on a premarital agreement (PMA) that appellant claimed was not in evidence.
- Whether the child-support award was erroneous or inconsistent with statutory requirements.

Holding / Outcome
- The Second District affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying bifurcation; it properly enforced the PMA; and the child-support award was reasonable and conformed to statutory requirements.

Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Bifurcation: The court emphasized discretionary review. Appellant’s incarceration alone did not establish a legal disability that required bifurcation. Multiple continuances had already been granted; the defense produced no authority establishing a protected right to personal attendance that mandated bifurcation. The record showed earlier temporary orders and freeze/attachment of bank accounts and payments from business accounts — undermining the claim he had no means to satisfy support or defend financial claims. The trial court rationally prioritized resolving the matter rather than further delay.
- Premarital agreement: Although the PMA was not physically attached to some filings in the common-law record, it had been introduced and the trial court expressly found the PMA valid and enforceable. The appellate court found no error in relying on the agreement for property division.
- Child support: The appellate court found the award supported by the record (including prior temporary orders and agreed figures for health insurance) and consistent with statutory child-support principles. Deference was given to the trial court’s factual assessments and discretionary determinations.

Practice implications
- Incarceration is not an automatic ground for bifurcation or abatement of financial proceedings; courts may proceed where evidence shows ability to pay (including business-account payments) or where delays have been protracted.
- Preserve and attach dispositive documents (e.g., PMAs) to the record and formally introduce them at hearings to avoid later evidentiary disputes.
- Temporary orders (arrears, freezes on accounts, writs to produce incarcerated parties) are effective tools to protect support claims; courts defers to trial-court factfinding on contested financial issues and will not lightly overturn discretionary decisions.