In re Marriage of Harnack, 2025 IL App (1st) 240835

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Harnack, 2025 IL App (1st) 240835 (1st Dist. June 24, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Pamela Harnack. Respondent‑Appellant: Steve Fanady.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying Fanady’s motion to vacate his civil‑contempt incarceration where he alleged it was impossible to comply with a dissolution judgment requiring transfer (or payment) for 120,000 CBOE shares awarded to Harnack.
- Standard and burden for proving impossibility or that continued incarceration is no longer coercive.
- Interaction between interpleader/partnership litigation over specific shares and enforcement of a dissolution judgment.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s denial of Fanady’s motion to vacate his incarceration for indirect civil contempt. Fanady failed to prove it was impossible to purge the contempt or that incarceration had ceased to be coercive.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Factual background: extensive record over many years showed Fanady repeatedly concealed assets (transfers to international accounts, transfers between entities) and engaged in litigation tactics to avoid enforcement. Prior appeals (Harnack I–IV) established this history; the court characterized Fanady as “the architect of his own predicament.”
- Burden of proof: a contemnor seeking vacation of civil contempt incarceration must show, with “definite and explicit evidence,” that compliance is impossible or that incarceration no longer serves its coercive purpose. General assertions of inability, unsupported by concrete proof of lack of assets or impossibility of repatriation, are insufficient.
- Deference to trial court: the trial court’s credibility determinations and factual findings about Fanady’s concealment and the availability of means to comply were upheld. The court also rejected Fanady’s attempt to use prior interpleader/partnership rulings to defeat enforcement of his direct obligations under the dissolution judgment.

5. Practice implications
- Enforcement: civil contempt with incarceration remains a viable coercive enforcement tool where contemnor has means to comply but refuses. Courts will sustain confinement until purge unless contemnor presents concrete, specific proof of impossibility.
- Proof strategy for contemnors: gather and present detailed, documentary evidence (account statements, custody of assets, foreign‑law obstacles, attempted repatriation) to establish impossibility or impracticability. Mere assertions or collateral litigation will not suffice.
- For judgment creditors: pursue aggressive discovery, asset tracing, international legal cooperation, receivership or turnover remedies, and use contempt where warranted. Maintain careful record of concealment and obstruction to support coercive remedies on remand or appeal.
- Appellate posture: factual findings on concealment/compliance and determinations about coerciveness are given deference; Rule 23 opinions are not binding precedent except in narrow circumstances.