In re Marriage of Kattner, 2023 IL App (1st) 220803-U

In re Marriage of Kattner, 2023 IL App (1st) 220803‑U

Parties
- George Kattner (petitioner/appellant) v. Amanda Kattner (respondent/appellee).

Key legal issues
- Characterization and division of various assets (Ecolab 401(k), Amanda’s Voya 401(k), Wrightwood condominium, life‑insurance policy).
- Enforceability of a unilateral “Renunciation and Disclaimer of Property” (RDP) executed by wife.
- Validity/substantive unconscionability of an informal “Kitchen Table Agreement” (postnuptial) and its impact on asset division.
- Whether trial court properly awarded attorney fees and honored parties’ stipulations.

Holding / Outcome (short)
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Appellate court affirmed that: (a) husband’s Ecolab 401(k) is marital; (b) Amanda’s RDP was unenforceable for lack of consideration; (c) trial court’s 60/40 overall marital split in Amanda’s favor; (d) denial of husband’s motion to reconsider. The court reversed trial court rulings that: (a) disregarded the parties’ stipulation that the condominium was marital; (b) characterized Amanda’s Voya 401(k) as nonmarital and husband’s life‑insurance as marital; (c) found the Kitchen Table Agreement substantively unconscionable; and (d) awarded attorney fees/costs to Amanda. Case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the corrections.

Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Stipulations: The appellate court emphasized that the trial court erred by disregarding an explicit stipulation (the Wrightwood condo was marital) — stipulations control unless withdrawn or shown invalid.
- Disclaimers/RDP: The RDP was treated as a renunciation made without consideration and thus had no effect in the dissolution distribution context; a unilateral disclaimer cannot be enforced to recharacterize marital assets where no bargained‑for consideration is proved.
- Retirement and ERISA issues: Husband’s 401(k) was marital property because evidence supported marital accrual. The court corrected mischaracterizations of other retirement/life‑insurance assets where the record did not support trial court’s findings.
- Postnuptial agreement: The trial court’s finding of substantive unconscionability was reversed for insufficient basis in the record.

Practice implications
- Honor stipulations: trial courts and counsel should respect and document stipulations; appellate courts will enforce them.
- Draft renunciations carefully: a disclaimer intended to affect marital property must be supported by consideration and, for ERISA plans, proper procedural steps (QDROs/plan documents) and clear evidentiary foundation.
- Retirement assets: fully develop evidence about pre‑marital vs. marital contributions and vesting; use QDROs and plan‑level procedures.
- Record for unconscionability/fees: if seeking to avoid an agreement or to shift fees beyond caps, build a detailed evidentiary record demonstrating unfairness, coercion, or statutory grounds.
- Expect remand where asset characterizations are inconsistent or stipulations disregarded; be precise in pleadings and trial exhibits.