In re Marriage of Azrikan, 2021 IL App (2d) 200392-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Azrikan, 2021 IL App (2d) 200392‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. July 9, 2021) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Leon Azrikan; Respondent: Alexandra Azrikan (deceased); Third‑party Petitioner‑Appellant: Vadim Azrikan (the adult child).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether an adult child may bring a post‑dissolution “third‑party beneficiary” petition to enforce a marital settlement agreement provision requiring a parent to contribute to higher education (750 ILCS 5/513(i)).
2) Whether the 2016 amendment to §513 (and related termination rules in §513(g)) or limitations doctrines (including the 10‑year limitation referenced by the trial court) bar the claim.
3) Whether the child’s petition could instead be treated as a contribution action following a parent’s death.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed dismissal. Vadim lacked standing to proceed as a third‑party beneficiary under §513(i). The court also noted that, in any event, the statutory authority to award educational expenses had terminated before the petition (child was over 23 and had a bachelor’s degree), so no viable contribution claim remained.

- Significant legal reasoning
• §513(i) (added 2016) plainly states that, where a settlement agreement describes how educational expenses will be paid, “in no event shall the court consider the child a third party beneficiary of that provision.” That language precludes a child from enforcing settlement provisions as a third‑party beneficiary.
• The amendment applies to proceedings commenced after its effective date (Jan. 1, 2016), and Vadim’s petition (Nov. 2019) is subject to the amended Act.
• While §513(i) permits a child to file a petition for contribution “in the event of the death or legal disability of a party who would have the right to file a petition for contribution,” Vadim pleaded enforcement of the settlement (not an independent contribution award). Moreover, §513(g) terminates the court’s authority to award educational expenses when the child attains 23 or receives a baccalaureate degree; Vadim had already done both before filing.

- Practice implications
• Post‑2016, children generally cannot enforce divorce settlement education provisions as third‑party beneficiaries—claims must be framed and timely brought as contribution actions when the statutory framework allows.
• Counsel should draft settlement agreements with clear enforcement mechanics (survivorship language, escrow, security, specific remedies) because courts will treat the agreement as the primary enforcement vehicle and limit third‑party claims.
• Watch statutory cutoffs (§513(g)) and limitation periods; intervene/bring contribution claims promptly after a parent’s death if that remedy is intended.
• Apply the amendment to any post‑2016 enforcement proceeding even if the original judgment predates 2016.