In re Marriage of Harnack
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 6/24/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pamela Harnack (No. 1-24-0835)</h3>
<strong>Court:</strong> Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District<br>
<strong>Date Filed:</strong> June 24, 2025<br>...
Full Case Summary
Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pamela Harnack (No. 1-24-0835)
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial DistrictDate Filed: June 24, 2025
Background
Pam Harnack, the petitioner, is in an ongoing legal battle with her ex-husband, Steve Fanady, who has been incarcerated for over 13 years for refusing to transfer stock valued at over $10 million awarded in their divorce settlement. Despite knowing the value, Fanady has attempted to conceal marital assets and evade compliance with the court's orders regarding the division of their marital estate.Financial Findings
The trial court initially ruled Fanady's worth at approximately $7.3 million in 2010, while Harnack faced significant financial difficulties. The marital estate included 280,000 shares of Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBOE) stock, and subsequent court rulings awarded 120,000 shares to Harnack.Contempt Ruling
The court upheld a contempt finding against Fanady, stating he must either transfer assets or their value to Harnack. His motion to vacate his contempt incarceration was denied, as he did not sufficiently show that compliance was impossible. The appellate court agreed with this ruling, noting Fanady’s history of evading legal obligations.Judicial Findings
Fanady's actions included transferring assets internationally and ceasing participation in the dissolution proceedings, leading to a default judgment against him. He later attempted to mislead the court by arguing that compliance was impossible due to the dissolution of the CBOE. However, the court found him responsible for his situation, reiterating that incarceration remains a coercive method to compel compliance with court orders.Subsequent Proceedings
Fanady's appeal included challenging earlier decisions in prior cases (Harnack I-IV) and arguing about procedural errors in contempt hearings. The court maintained that due process was followed, dismissing Fanady's appeals as he failed to provide compelling evidence of his claims. On multiple occasions, Fanady did not demonstrate an inability to comply with the orders handed down by the court.Recent Developments
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, reinforcing the legitimacy of the contempt ruling and the necessity of Fanady's compliance with the court orders. Harnack seeks not only her awarded shares but has also pushed for compensatory measures due to Fanady's continued non-compliance, which the court supported.Conclusion
Ultimately, the court ruled that Fanady had the financial means and legal obligation to fulfill the court's orders, emphasizing that the length of his incarceration served as a reminder of his contemptuous behavior and the necessity for compliance with legal obligations regarding the division of the marital estate. This order is not precedent except as allowed under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Harnack? Ask our AI assistant below.