In re Marriage of Amyette, 2023 IL App (3d) 200195

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Amyette, 2023 IL App (3d) 200195 — William A. Amyette (petitioner/appellant) v. Jeanne M. Amyette (respondent/appellee).

- Key legal issues
1. Enforceability of a prenuptial agreement executed days before the marriage: (a) waiver of spousal maintenance; (b) designation of specified real property (the East Moline residence) as petitioner’s nonmarital property.
2. Whether proceeds from respondent’s pre‑marital sale ($40,000 from respondent’s Davenport house) used to pay petitioner’s family lender created an ownership interest or entitlement to reimbursement/credit in the marital residence (tenancy in common/resulting trust/unjust enrichment).
3. Whether petitioner’s failure to place respondent’s name on title constituted a breach of fiduciary duty or created unconscionability warranting equitable relief.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions (trial-court rulings were reviewed; the court upheld some of the circuit court’s findings and rejected others). At the trial level the court (1) found the Agreement valid as to enumerated listed assets except the East Moline house, (2) ruled the maintenance waiver and the Agreement’s designation of the East Moline house as petitioner’s nonmarital property unenforceable as applied, and (3) awarded respondent at least $40,000 equity/credit in the East Moline house (plus related orders to effect payment/move‑out arrangements). William appealed those adverse findings.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court’s fact‑dependent analysis emphasized timing and circumstances surrounding execution (agreement signed days before wedding; respondent read but did not fully understand terms and had no independent counsel), but still found respondent had the opportunity to consult counsel. Crucially, the court focused on equity and unconscionability: respondent’s $40,000 from a pre‑marriage sale was used to pay petitioner’s parents’ loan on the house that became the marital residence, and petitioner never placed respondent on title despite an understanding he would — the court characterized this as a premeditated, undisclosed plan to use respondent’s nonmarital funds while retaining sole title. That finding supported treating respondent as having at least a $40,000 ownership/reimbursement right (tenancy in common or equitable remedy), and rendered the prenup’s attempt to characterize the residence as petitioner’s nonmarital property unenforceable. The maintenance waiver was also invalidated under the facts as unconscionable or lacking adequate disclosure/voluntary informed consent.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Prenuptial agreements executed shortly before a wedding invite heightened scrutiny: allow meaningful time, full written disclosure, and strongly encourage/ document independent counsel for both parties.
- Explicitly address contributions of pre‑marital funds toward acquisition of property and state whether such contributions create separate reimbursement, resulting trust, or title change; include mechanics (recording, deed transfers) to implement intentions.
- Maintain contemporaneous documentation (agreements about use of sale proceeds, bank deposits, communications) to rebut claims of unjust enrichment or constructive trust.
- Where a client’s conduct could be characterized as withholding title despite using the other spouse’s funds, counsel should rectify title or reduce risk (deed, written acknowledgment, promissory/reimbursement agreement).
- Anticipate that courts will apply equitable doctrines and unconscionability analysis when procedural fairness, disclosure, or fiduciary concerns exist even if a prenup contains broad waiver language.