In re Marriage of Dave, 2023 IL App (5th) 220114-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Dave, No. 5-22-0114, 2023 IL App (5th) 220114-U (Ill. App. Ct. Jan. 20, 2023). Petitioner–Appellee: Shruti Dave. Respondent–Appellant: Manish Dave.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether an oral settlement recited in open court (not yet reduced to a written MSA) is enforceable;
2) Whether the oral settlement was voidable for duress, unconscionability, or lack of capacity (diminished hearing);
3) Whether the trial court’s dissolution judgment (allocation of assets, valuation date, waiver of maintenance, and distribution of debts/taxes) was against the manifest weight of the evidence; and
4) Whether portions of the judgment (distribution of personal property) were sufficiently founded in the record or were arbitrary.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s August 25, 2021 order enforcing the oral settlement and affirmed the September 15, 2021 judgment of dissolution in large part. The court vacated only the trial court’s language regarding distribution of the parties’ personal property as arbitrary.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Enforceability: The court relied on the clear, on-the-record recitation of terms by counsel and the express, unambiguous assent of both parties in open court. The trial court expressly found the agreement binding despite lack of a written MSA; the appellate court deferred to that credibility and procedural finding.
- Duress / capacity claims: Appellant’s assertions of duress (last-minute pressure, judge bias), inability to hear, and grief over an ill father were rejected as lacking corroboration. Counsel who negotiated the deal testified that the parties reviewed assets and understood terms; appellant failed to present contemporaneous medical or other evidence to support incapacity or coercion. Credibility findings were upheld.
- Substance of the agreement: The asset allocation (60/40 splits, specific account transfers, waiver of maintenance, and pre-split withdrawal of asserted nonmarital funds) was not unconscionable on the record and was supported by financial affidavits and negotiation history. The appellate court sustained valuation-date and allocation choices as not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Personal property: The court vacated the portion of the order addressing “personal property” because it was too vague/arbitrary and not tied to a factual record.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Obtain clear, on‑the‑record recitation of settlement terms and explicit party assent; such oral recitals can be binding.
- Prepare and exchange detailed asset lists, identify nonmarital funds, and secure client confirmations on the record.
- If a client claims incapacity, duress, or needs more time, create contemporaneous documentary proof (medical records, written objections) before or immediately after any agreement.
- Avoid vague blanket language (e.g., “personal property”)—specify items, tax allocations, valuation date, debt responsibility, and enforcement mechanics to prevent later vacatur.