In re Marriage of Battaglia, 2023 IL App (1st) 220051-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Battaglia, 2023 IL App (1st) 220051-U (1st Dist. Mar. 22, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Wendy Battaglia. Respondent-Appellant: Mark Battaglia.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly reformed / corrected a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that attributed a $9,000 marital debt to the wrong creditor (First Eagle) when the parties’ intent and payment history tied the debt to Consumers Credit Union.
- Whether the post-judgment hearing and evidence supporting the modification/reformation were legally sufficient.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the circuit court did not err in reforming the MSA to reflect the correct creditor (Consumers) for the $9,000 debt.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The MSA was treated as the parties’ integrated contract and the alleged error was characterized as a scrivener’s/typographical mistake that could be corrected to reflect the parties’ true agreement.
- The court relied on the record (prove-up testimony and the parties’ conduct) showing the $9,000 obligation matched the Consumers loan balance and could not reasonably be the larger First Eagle mortgage balance. At the prove-up, Wendy identified the creditor as Consumers and confirmed the ~$9,000 balance; Mark had acknowledged reviewing and accepting the MSA terms at the hearing.
- Appellate court emphasized that the trial court, having heard testimony and reviewed the parties’ positions, did not abuse its discretion in reforming the contract. The court rejected the argument the hearing was legally insufficient, noting the record supported the trial court’s factual findings.
- The opinion also observes procedural limits on evidence: attachments to pleadings not moved into evidence were not considered as trial exhibits.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Verify creditor names, account numbers, and balances in MSAs; attach and incorporate payoff statements or written bank confirmations to avoid later reformation disputes.
- At prove-up hearings, ensure clear oral testimony on debts and creditors (and cross-examination if contested) and place contemporaneous documentation into evidence.
- Where a scrivener’s error is suspected, seek equitable reformation promptly and present objective corroboration (payment history, prior court orders, bank statements moved into evidence).
- Remember Rule 23 orders are non-precedential; still, this decision reinforces that courts will correct clear typographical errors where the record shows the parties’ intent.