In re Marriage of Geldermann, 2024 IL App (1st) 230954-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Geldermann, 2024 IL App (1st) 230954‑U (1st Dist. May 8, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: James J. Geldermann. Respondent‑Appellee: Vera Ilvovsky.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the premarital agreement remained effective or was revoked by a later postnuptial agreement.
2) Enforceability of the postnuptial agreement (duress, unconscionability, consideration, disclosure).
3) Division of marital assets (proceeds from liquidation of business interests), maintenance, dissipation, and contractual attorney‑fee awards.
4) Sufficiency of the appellate record to review lower‑court rulings.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the Cook County circuit court’s dissolution judgment, which (a) accepted Judge Boyd’s earlier ruling that the premarital agreement was revoked in writing by the postnuptial agreement; (b) found the postnuptial agreement valid and enforceable; (c) awarded Vera $2,000/month maintenance for 10 years, ~20% of the Midwestern Farms liquidation proceeds (adjusted for tax), and reasonable attorney fees; and (d) rejected claims of dissipation. The affirmation was rendered in the context of the appellant’s failure to provide an adequate record on appeal.

- Significant legal reasoning
The appellate opinion emphasized procedural and substantive points. Procedurally, the appellant (pro se) did not supply a sufficient record, which limited appellate review and supported affirmance. Substantively, the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations (including that James failed to disclose financial interests and was not credible on duress claims) were entitled to deference. The court found the postnuptial agreement expressly revoked the premarital agreement; Vera’s waiver of claims to Wireless.Dev and other concessions constituted adequate consideration; and, although the maintenance term was lengthy, it did not rise to unconscionability given the parties’ agreement and the evidence. The trial court’s award of attorney fees followed the agreement’s fee‑shifting provision because James repeatedly challenged enforcement.

- Practice implications (concise bullets)
- Preserve and assemble a complete record (contracts, wills, trial exhibits, transcripts). appellate review will be limited without it.
- When attacking prenuptial/postnuptial agreements, develop contemporaneous evidence of duress, inadequate disclosure, or unconscionability; credibility findings are rarely disturbed.
- A later written postnuptial that expressly revokes a premarital agreement can control.
- Contractual fee‑shifting clauses are enforceable; litigating the agreement can trigger fee exposure.
- Full financial disclosure is critical; failure undermines credibility and defenses to enforcement.