In re Marriage of Fiore, 2019 IL App (1st) 180784-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Fiore, No. 1-18-0784 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 26, 2019) (2019 IL App (1st) 180784-U). Petitioner/Appellee: Jane Fiore. Respondent/Appellant: Steven Fiore (as Special Administrator).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a post‑judgment petition seeking reimbursement more than 30 days after entry of a dissolution judgment was an enforce­ment (permitted) or an impermissible modification (barred).
2. Whether claims for pre‑judgment obligations merged into the incorporated marital settlement agreement (MSA) and were therefore barred.
3. Whether the trial court improperly relied on parol (extrinsic) evidence in interpreting the MSA.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court. It held the petition sought enforcement (not modification) of the MSA, so the court retained jurisdiction to enforce it; the reimbursement claim was not barred by merger; and the trial court did not err in its consideration of evidence. The trial court’s order requiring Steven to reimburse Jane $8,195.39 (50% of the payment she made to a third party) from his share of proceeds on sale of the Prospect property was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Contract terms controlled: Section 7.2 of the MSA required that "all expenses associated with maintaining" the commercial property be "equally divided" until sale; the TCF bank account was allocated separately (64% divided equally between spouses; 36% to a third party, Eckhardt).
- Enforcement vs. modification: Because the petition sought enforcement of the MSA (which the judgment incorporated) and the judgment expressly retained jurisdiction for enforcement, the court had authority to adjudicate reimbursement after 30 days.
- Merger inapplicable: The claim enforced an obligation defined by the incorporated MSA (sharing of maintenance expenses), not a new substantive claim barred by merger.
- Evidence: The court relied on uncontroverted testimony, documents, and the parties’ course of conduct (including petitioner’s payment to Eckhardt and a receiver’s accounting) to establish the obligation; the appellate court found no improper resort to extrinsic evidence given the factual record.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Draft MSAs with explicit allocation and timing for pre‑ and post‑judgment liabilities (e.g., association dues, escrow accounts) to avoid later disputes.
- Include an express retention-of-jurisdiction/enforcement clause if you want post‑judgment remedies available.
- Preserve records (ledgers, receiver reports, third‑party demands, payment receipts) when making payments to third parties; such evidence can be dispositive in enforcement petitions.
- When defending enforcement petitions, raise merger, laches, estoppel and parol‑evidence challenges early but recognize courts will enforce incorporated MSA obligations and consider parties’ conduct.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) decision and may not be cited as precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).