In re Marriage of Casey, 2019 IL App (3rd) 170679-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Casey, 2019 IL App (3d) 170679-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Mar. 11, 2019) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Margaret J. Casey. Respondent-Appellant: Brendan J. Casey, Sr.

2. Key legal issues
- How to interpret the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) regarding (a) whether the “reduction in principal that the Wife is entitled to pursuant to this paragraph” applies only to a first‑refusal purchase or also to a third‑party sale; and (b) whether the wife was entitled to a monetary credit for mortgage principal reductions she paid from entry of the divorce judgment until the eventual sale.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Third District affirmed. The trial court correctly awarded the wife $53,777.72 for principal reduction (from the date of the divorce to the date of sale) and directed the parties to equally split the remaining net proceeds. The appellate court found no error in the trial court’s contract interpretation or award.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court treated the MSA as an ordinary contract and applied contract‑interpretation principles: ascertain intent from the agreement’s language; unambiguous terms control; interpretation reviewed de novo.
- The contested language (“Said purchase price shall be at the then‑appraised value, less any amounts owed … and the reduction in principal that the Wife is entitled to pursuant to this paragraph”) did not expressly limit the principal reduction to the first‑refusal transaction. Because the MSA did not include specific limiting language, the court declined to read a restriction into the provision.
- The court relied on In re Marriage of Hall, 404 Ill. App. 3d 160 (2010), for the principle that the absence of limiting language means related provisions should not be narrowly construed where the parties could easily have added limiting words.
- The ruling gave the reduction its plain meaning and applied it to the mortgage payments the wife had been contractually obligated to make after the judgment.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- MSAs should expressly define treatment of post‑judgment mortgage payments: specify whether payments reduce principal, whether payer is entitled to reimbursement/credit, the accrual period (e.g., from entry of judgment), calculation method (principal vs. interest; include escrowed tax/insurance), and whether credits apply to third‑party sales and buyouts.
- Use clear buyout pricing language (e.g., “purchase price = appraised value less mortgage balance as of sale date, less X credit to occupying spouse”), and include accounting/escrow mechanics and timing for distribution.
- Although Rule 23 nonprecedential, the decision underscores courts’ willingness to enforce plain contractual language; careful drafting avoids post‑judgment litigation.