In re Marriage of Jabusch, 2020 IL App (4th) 200021-U

In re Marriage of Jabusch, 2020 IL App (4th) 200021‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Mary Jabusch (Petitioner‑Appellee) and Lawrence R. Jabusch (Respondent‑Appellant), No. 4‑20‑0021 (4th Dist. Oct. 29, 2020). Filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 (non‑precedential).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in entering Mary’s proposed judgment and associated QILDRO over Lawrence’s objection after an on‑the‑record settlement.
- Whether the court abused its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motions to vacate the judgment based on claimed mutual mistake (specifically exclusion of permissive/purchased service from the marital portion of Mary’s State pension).
- Whether the trial court improperly excluded permissive service from the marital pension calculation.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court concluded Lawrence’s challenges were unsupported by the record presented and upheld the trial court’s entry of the judgment (including the QILDRO and calculation order) and denial of vacatur.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The trial court accepted an on‑the‑record settlement at the July 30, 2019 prove‑up; counsel were instructed to prepare documents and the court confirmed the agreement was final, fair, and voluntary.
- Mary subsequently filed proposed judgment, QILDRO and calculation order that reflected the parties’ on‑record agreement: marital portion = months of regular service during marriage (134) divided by months of regular + permissive service through retirement (424.5), with husband to receive 50% of that marital portion (the judgment used 31.5% marital portion derived from that fraction).
- Lawrence asserted on motion that additional purchased/accumulated permissive service (107.5 months) should be included in the marital portion; he sought vacatur on mutual‑mistake grounds or enforcement consistent with the on‑record recitation.
- The appellate court emphasized that Lawrence failed to supply a transcript, bystander’s report, or agreed statement of proceedings to support his claims; consequently, the record did not show error or mutual mistake warranting relief. The court therefore refused to disturb the judgment.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Secure written settlement agreements whenever possible; if you rely on an oral recitation, ensure a detailed, unambiguous on‑the‑record statement and obtain a transcript or agreed statement promptly.
- When pension division is involved, draft and lodge the QILDRO and a calculation order reflecting agreed methodology (explicitly state whether permissive/purchased service is included).
- Preserve the record: if you anticipate post‑judgment challenges, obtain transcripts and attach demonstrative exhibits to filings. Failure to produce the record is frequently fatal on appeal.
- Be mindful of 750 ILCS 5/502(a) (writing requirement exception for oral prove‑ups) and obtain clear court acceptance if proceeding without a signed written agreement.