In re Marriage of Kaiser, 2023 IL App (3d) 210482-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kaiser, 2023 IL App (3d) 210482-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Mar. 31, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Louis D. Kaiser (deceased; Estate represented). Respondent/Appellant: Janice M. Kaiser. Third‑party Plaintiff/Appellee: Kristal Kaiser.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Janice’s 735 ILCS 5/2‑1301 motion to vacate the dissolution judgment on grounds of fraudulent concealment of a Deere & Company life insurance policy and resulting unconscionability of the settlement.
- Whether clerical/omission errors in the written judgment could be corrected nunc pro tunc.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion: it denied vacatur of the dissolution judgment and granted the Estate’s motion to correct the written judgment nunc pro tunc to reflect the terms recited at the July 11, 2019 prove‑up. The court found no fraudulent concealment of the Deere policy that would justify vacatur.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for denial of a section 2‑1301 motion.
- Fact findings: Louis’s financial affidavits (initial and amended) listed a Deere & Co. policy (initially with unknown death benefit; later listed as $40,000); the prove‑up transcript showed parties negotiated and voluntarily approved the settlement in open court; counsel for the Estate conceded clerical omissions in the written judgment and supplied a corrected form.
- The trial court concluded the settlement was knowingly and voluntarily entered and that the written judgment’s omissions were largely clerical. Janice failed to prove fraudulent concealment — the policy had been disclosed in filings and there was no evidence Louis intentionally hid it from her so as to induce agreement. Mere beneficiary change to the daughter did not establish actionable fraud preventing enforcement of the decree. Thus vacatur was not warranted; nunc pro tunc correction of the written judgment to conform to the oral agreement was proper to cure drafting errors.

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Confirm financial affidavits and pretrial memoranda are exchanged and reviewed by clients; specifically identify and document life insurance ownership, cash values, death benefits, and beneficiary designations in the settlement and judgment if they are intended to be part of the division.
- At prove‑up, read into the record all material assets and intended allocations (including insurance) and ensure the written judgment mirrors the transcript before entry.
- If a party dies before entry, estates may seek nunc pro tunc correction for clerical errors; however, substantive changes require stronger grounds (fraud, unconscionability, newly discovered evidence).
- To avoid post‑judgment challenges: obtain client acknowledgment that disclosures were reviewed, and address beneficiary changes, survivorship rights, or life‑insurance assignments expressly in the MSA/judgment.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this decision is non‑precedential except in limited circumstances.