In re Marriage of Herring, 2023 IL App (2d) 220314-U

In re Marriage of Herring, 2023 IL App (2d) 220314‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. July 18, 2023) (Rule 23(b) non‑precedential)

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Herring, No. 2‑22‑0314, Order filed July 18, 2023.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Paul J. Herring. Respondent‑Appellee: Tracy Herring. Appeal from Lake County dissolution incorporating a marital settlement agreement (MSA).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a Section 2‑1401 petition seeking reformation of an MSA (based on mutual mistake) adequately pleaded a cause of action to reform disposition of Section 529 “Bright Start” college accounts.
- Interaction of MSA language, the MSA asset spreadsheet (which segregated children’s accounts from the marital estate), and statutory provisions concerning educational expense obligations and treatment of 529 accounts (750 ILCS 5/513, 5/502).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the petition failed to state a claim for reformation and therefore dismissal was proper under Section 2‑615 (failure to state a cause of action), even though the trial court granted dismissal on Section 2‑619 grounds.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Reformation under Section 2‑1401 requires specific factual allegations showing a meeting of the minds or an existing agreement that was mistakenly omitted or misstated in the written MSA.
- Petitioner alleged a “mutual misconception” that both children would attend college full‑time and maintain a C average but did not plausibly allege an underlying agreement that the Bright Start accounts were to be divided 55/45 between the parties on termination of college‑expense obligations.
- The MSA’s spreadsheet explicitly listed the Bright Start accounts under “Children’s Savings Accounts,” separate from the marital estate (which was allocated 55/45). That structure undermined petitioner’s claim that the MSA mistakenly omitted an agreement to treat the accounts as marital property subject to the 55/45 split.
- Because the petition lacked sufficient factual detail to show a preexisting, unreflected agreement, reformation could not be granted as a matter of law.

5. Practice implications
- Draft MSAs with express, clear language about the ownership and post‑education disposition of 529 and other child‑designated accounts (e.g., specify who controls, who may withdraw for non‑educational uses, and how remainder will be allocated if educational obligations terminate).
- If parties intend to treat 529s as marital property, expressly include them in the marital estate and in the division clause; if not, segregate and state that purpose explicitly to avoid ambiguity.
- In litigating reformation, plead specific facts establishing the parties’ actual agreement and mutual mistake (not merely assumptions about children’s future education), and attach documentary support.
- For appeals, preserve hearing transcripts (or agreed statements) in the record; omissions can limit review.