In re Marriage of Iqbal, 2014 IL App (2d) 131306

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Iqbal, 2014 IL App (2d) 131306 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., May 6, 2014).
- Petitioner/Counter-respondent: Uzma Iqbal. Respondent/Counter-petitioner: Mohammad Vajahath Khan.

2. Key legal issues
- Enforceability of a postnuptial agreement (PNA) that: (a) delegates custody decisions and sanctions to a counselor and (b) penalizes a spouse who files for divorce.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying appointment of a custody evaluator under 750 ILCS 5/604.5.
- Whether the award of sole custody, maintenance, and a disproportionate share of the marital estate to the wife was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Appellate jurisdiction where the trial court “reserved” the amount of maintenance.

3. Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the PNA unenforceable (public policy and substantive unconscionability). The trial court did not abuse discretion in denying a custody evaluator, awarding sole custody to the wife, awarding maintenance, or dividing the marital estate disproportionately in the wife’s favor. The appeal was allowed; the dissolution judgment was final despite reserving the maintenance amount.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- PNA: The agreement was unenforceable because it improperly delegated custody decisions to a counselor (implicating children’s best interests and public policy), permitted the counselor to determine whether a party’s divorce filing was “reasonable,” and allowed forfeiture of custody/property based on such determinations. The provision penalizing the wife’s “unreasonable” filing for divorce was substantively unconscionable and too vague (undefined “unreasonable”), so enforcement was barred.
- Custody evaluator: The record was inadequate to show the trial court abused its discretion; absent a clear record of legal error or lack of factual basis, appellate review presumes conformity with law.
- Custody and property orders: Sole custody to the mother and the disproportionate property/maintenance awards were supported by evidence—children resided with mother for extended period, father’s extended absences and low income, marital assets/debts and financial needs—so not against manifest weight.
- Jurisdiction: “Reserv[ing]” maintenance without setting a later date can be treated as an award of zero maintenance subject to future modification and is appealable.

5. Practice implications
- PNAs: Avoid delegating custody decisions or imposing forfeitures/sanctions tied to filing for divorce; clearly define any terms (e.g., “reasonable”) and avoid contract provisions that waive or pre-determine parental rights—courts may deem them against public policy/substantively unconscionable.
- Custody evaluations: If seeking a custody evaluator, establish and preserve record showing why a court-appointed evaluation is necessary; rulings denying evaluators are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Evidence for deviation in property split: Document income, earning capacity, parenting arrangements, contributions, and debts to support requests for disproportionate distributions or maintenance.
- Appellate practice: Comply with Rule 341; a court’s reservation of maintenance may still yield a final, appealable order—analyze the order as a whole.