In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Heinrich, 2014 IL App (2d) 121333 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Mar. 19, 2014).
- Petitioner/Counterrespondent: Mary Lee Heinrich. Respondent/Counterpetitioner: Paul Heinrich.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a premarital agreement clause that bars recovery of attorneys’ fees and costs is enforceable with respect to child-related issues (custody, visitation, support).
- Whether the trial court erred in declaring the premarital agreement valid and enforceable in its entirety.
- Procedural issue: denial of a 17‑month-later motion to reconsider.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part and remanded.
- It held that the premarital agreement’s blanket ban on attorneys’ fees is unenforceable as to child-related issues because it violates Illinois public policy.
- The remainder of the premarital agreement was preserved and enforceable under its severability clause. (Justice Hutchinson dissented.)

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Public-policy protection of children’s welfare and statutory rights (including the court’s parens patriae role and child‑support enforcement mechanisms) precludes private contract provisions that would effectively deter or prevent a parent from seeking judicial relief on child custody/support issues. A provision that bars fee recovery for child-related litigation can operate to chill legitimate court access and impede statutory protections, and therefore cannot be enforced to the extent it covers child issues.
- Because the agreement contained a severability clause, the offensive portion (the fee-shifting ban as applied to child issues) could be severed without voiding the entire agreement. The court therefore enforced the remaining contractual provisions.
- The opinion follows the general principle (recognized in prior Illinois cases) that parties cannot contract away the court’s authority or a child’s substantive statutory protections. The court also treated arbitration and choice-of-law provisions as subordinate to public-policy limits for child matters.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Prenuptial agreements should not include blanket waivers that would bar recovery of fees or otherwise discourage litigation over custody, support, or other child‑related matters — such clauses may be unenforceable.
- Include explicit carve-outs preserving the right to seek fees and court intervention for child-related claims, or limit fee waivers to purely financial/property aspects.
- Always include a severability clause; it can preserve the enforceability of acceptable provisions if a court strikes an offensive term.
- Choice-of-law or arbitration clauses cannot insulate provisions that conflict with Illinois public policy regarding children.
- When litigating premarital agreements, raise public-policy issues early; appellate courts will separate offending terms rather than invalidate entire agreements.