In re Marriage of Faul, 2023 IL App (2d) 210754-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Faul, 2023 IL App (2d) 210754-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Apr. 13, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Lawrence Daniel Faul (Daniel). Respondent-Appellee: Jacquelyn Stacey Faul (Stacey).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a post-dissolution 735 ILCS 5/2-1401 petition seeking reformation for a claimed mutual mistake in an MSA was timely.
- Whether petitioner adequately pleaded an exception (legal disability, duress, or fraudulent concealment) to § 2-1401(c)’s two‑year filing limit or alleged a void judgment.
- Proper procedural vehicle for dismissal of a § 2-1401 petition (§ 2‑615/§ 2‑619), and standard of review.

3. Holding/outcome
- The trial court’s dismissal of Daniel’s § 2‑1401 petition was affirmed. The petition was untimely (filed ~3.5 years after entry of the dissolution/MSA) and did not plead an adequate exception to the two‑year limit. The appellate court modified the trial court’s order to clarify the dismissal was with prejudice to collateral relief but did not bar a potential direct‑relief claim.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- § 2‑1401 petitions must be filed within two years after entry of the judgment (735 ILCS 5/2‑1401(c)), unless legal disability, duress, or fraudulent concealment is pleaded, or the judgment is void. A § 2‑1401 petition is treated procedurally like an initial complaint and may be dismissed under § 2‑615 or § 2‑619.
- Statute‑of‑limitations defenses are normally affirmative matters for § 2‑619 dismissal; because Daniel acknowledged the delay, he was required to allege facts supporting an exception. His generalized assertion of fraudulent concealment was insufficient, and the appellate court observed the practical inconsistency of claiming both mutual mistake and that the same facts were fraudulently concealed. The operative trigger for § 2‑1401 is entry of the judgment/MSA—subsequent sale dates do not extend the filing window absent properly pleaded tolling facts.
- Standard of review: timeliness/legal issues reviewed de novo; where fact issues would control, abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications (for family-law attorneys)
- File § 2‑1401 petitions promptly—the two‑year clock runs from judgment/MSA, not from later events like asset sales, unless tolling is properly pleaded.
- If relying on an exception (fraudulent concealment, duress, disability), plead specific, factual allegations and support with affidavit/evidence as required by § 2‑1401(b).
- Treat § 2‑1401 petitions like complaints—anticipate § 2‑615/§ 2‑619 challenges (limitations is typically a § 2‑619 affirmative defense).
- When drafting MSAs, be precise about sequencing and source of distributions to avoid reformation disputes.
- Remember this order is Rule 23 (non‑precedential) and should be used accordingly.