In re Marriage of Harnack, 2022 IL App (1st) 210143

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Harnack, 2022 IL App (1st) 210143. Pamela Harnack (petitioner/appellee) v. Steve Fanady (respondent/appellant).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court properly enforced a 2011 dissolution judgment awarding Harnack 120,000 CBOE shares (or their value) where Fanady had hidden or transferred marital shares.
2. Whether the court erred in denying Fanady’s motions (dismissal/summary judgment) arguing law-of-the-case, collateral estoppel, res judicata, and unclean hands.
3. Whether civil contempt (commitment to jail) and a body attachment were appropriate to coerce compliance.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in denying Fanady’s procedural motions; it properly entertained Harnack’s petition to enforce the dissolution judgment, found Fanady in contempt for refusing to comply, and ordered coercive remedies (commitment/body attachment). Judgment affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The dissolution judgment unambiguously awarded Harnack 120,000 shares of CBOE stock; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce that judgment and to order turnover or an appropriate monetary equivalent where Fanady had concealed or dissipated assets.
- Procedural defenses raised by Fanady (law of the case, collateral estoppel, res judicata) failed because the interpleader/partnership litigation did not extinguish Fanady’s independent obligation to Harnack under the dissolution judgment. The obligation to deliver 120,000 shares (or value) was enforceable despite related litigation over other claimants.
- The appellate history established Fanady’s longstanding refusal to participate and repeated efforts to evade the court (including asset transfers abroad and forged documents). The court relied on that history to reject his attempts to relitigate distributional fairness—holding that any perceived errors flowed from Fanady’s deliberate abandonment of the litigation.
- Civil contempt and coercive confinement were appropriate where Fanady willfully disobeyed a clear court order and could comply by disclosing/turning over shares or paying their value.

- Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Preserve a detailed record of noncompliance and asset-concealment to justify enforcement and contempt.
- When marital assets are hidden, courts can order in-kind turnover or monetary substitution and may impose coercive sanctions (including jail) for civil contempt.
- Interpleader or parallel civil litigation involving third parties does not necessarily defeat enforcement of a dissolution award; keep enforcement claims distinct.
- Aggressive asset tracing (including international discovery) and prompt petitions to enforce (and for sanctions/fees) are critical where a litigant engages in delay/evasion.
- Defaults and prolonged nonparticipation undermine later challenges to the judgment—clients who disengage risk being bound by and unable to attack unfavorable decrees.