In re Marriage of Haenisch, 2021 IL App (2d) 200356-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Haenisch, 2021 IL App (2d) 200356-U (Ill. App. Ct. July 28, 2021) (Rule 23(b) non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Eric Haenisch. Respondent/Appellant: Kerry A. Haenisch.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court failed to comply with 750 ILCS 5/502(b) by not separately ruling on unconscionability before enforcing a post‑nuptial agreement (PNA).
- Whether the PNA was substantively unconscionable (i.e., so one‑sided or oppressive as to be unenforceable).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held (1) no separate conscionability finding was required where the trial court effectively considered and rejected unconscionability and found the agreement enforceable, and (2) the PNA was not substantively unconscionable.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory framework: 750 ILCS 5/502(b) makes PNAs binding unless the court finds them unconscionable after considering economic circumstances and other evidence. The court construed the statute’s plain language to mean unconscionability is the exception; where a court finds the agreement enforceable it has implicitly rejected unconscionability.
- Burden: The party attacking a PNA bears the burden to prove unconscionability.
- Substantive unconscionability test: a contract is unconscionable where terms are significantly one‑sided or oppressive. The appellate court reviewed de novo and found Kerry did not meet her burden. Although Kerry (47, unemployed, history of alcohol abuse) would receive less under the PNA than default Illinois law might provide, the PNA also imposed burdens on Eric (shared debts/fees, equal splitting of marital assets including pension). The trial court’s consideration of the parties’ post‑agreement circumstances and future prospects did not render the agreement unconscionable. Other factors weighed against Kerry: she had legal advice available, negotiated terms, and voluntarily signed.

5. Practice implications
- Drafting PNAs: document full financial disclosures, attach schedules of assets/liabilities, and memorialize negotiation and receipt of independent counsel to reduce attack risk. Avoid vague or undocumented valuations.
- Challenging PNAs: focus on evidence of substantive unconscionability at the time of signing (immediate economic disparity, coercion/duress, lack of counsel or disclosure), because courts require the challenger to prove oppressive one‑sidedness.
- Litigation strategy: courts may treat enforcement and unconscionability analyses as overlapping; obtain/findings on the record addressing unconscionability, economic circumstances at signing, voluntariness, and bargaining history to preserve appellate claims.