In re Marriage of Estrada, 2022 IL App (1st) 210464‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jessica Estrada (Petitioner‑Appellee) v. Kenneth Williams (Respondent‑Appellant), Nos. 1‑21‑0464 & 1‑21‑0693 (consol.), Order filed July 21, 2022 (1st Dist.). Rule 23 order (non‑precedential in general).

2) Key legal issues
- How to construe the parties’ 2012 marital settlement agreement (MSA) allocation of Kenneth’s Section 409(a) deferred compensation: (a) whether the ex‑wife is entitled to 50% of the account balance as of the 2012 decree (per exhibit A), or (b) whether she is entitled to 50% of any net distributions if and when Kenneth receives payments from the account.
- Whether the MSA language is ambiguous and whether extrinsic evidence is required.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court correctly held that the MSA’s plain language required the parties to equally share the net payment(s) if and when Kenneth receives any distributions from the 409(a) Northern Trust accounts. The ex‑wife is not limited to 50% of the 2012 exhibit A balance. The trial court’s declaratory relief and discovery order was upheld; a Rule 304(a) finding was entered.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court applied standard contract construction rules to an MSA: ascertain parties’ intent from the agreement language; give plain and ordinary meaning to unambiguous terms; review de novo. Paragraph (iii) of Article IV(C) unambiguously states: “If and when KENNETH receives any payments... the parties shall equally share the net payment.” That wording contemplates division of net distributions at the time of distribution (after taxes/fees), not a static split of the 2012 account value.
- The court distinguished Carrier (332 Ill. App. 3d 654), where the MSA specified a fixed dollar transfer, emphasizing that Carrier’s language expressly fixed a sum and thus did not control here. Because Estrada’s clause was clear, extrinsic evidence was unnecessary.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs with explicit valuation/time‑of‑measurement clauses for retirement/deferred compensation (e.g., “50% of values as of [date]” vs. “50% of distributions when paid”). Define “net payment” (taxes, fees, employer withholdings) and specify who bears tax consequences and whether payments are grossed‑up.
- Address unvested interests, employer ownership, and mechanics (QDRO, direct payments, escrow, trust, or bank transfer); include enforcement and accounting remedies and dispute resolution.
- Preserve discovery and subpoena remedies for post‑decree accretions and transfers. Consider Rule 23 status when citing this opinion—persuasive but limited precedent.