In re Marriage of Keller, 2021 IL App (1st) 200739-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Keller, No. 1-20-0739, 2021 IL App (1st) 200739-U (Ill. App. Ct. 6th Div. Sept. 17, 2021) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: Juli L. Keller. Respondent-Appellee: Gary R. Keller.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Juli’s motion to vacate the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (MSA) on grounds of duress and procedural unconscionability.
2. Whether the trial court erred by limiting discovery related to the motion to vacate.
3. Whether Juli’s due-process rights were violated in the hearing on the motion to vacate.
4. Whether bifurcation of dissolution from ancillary matters improperly influenced Juli’s execution of the MSA.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to vacate, did not improperly bar discovery, did not deny due process, and did not improperly influence execution of the MSA by bifurcating the proceedings.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: discretionary and factual rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion/manifest weight of the evidence.
- Duress/procedural unconscionability: the court found no credible evidence that Juli signed under coercive duress or that procedural infirmities rendered the MSA unconscionable. Credibility determinations (including Juli’s inconsistent statements about counsel, desire to proceed, and interactions with counsel) supported the trial court’s findings and are entitled to deference.
- Discovery limitation: trial court’s restriction was within its broad discretion and not an abuse; appellant failed to show prejudice from the limitation.
- Due process: appellant received notice and an opportunity to be heard; the hearing record showed adequate procedural protections.
- Bifurcation: appellant did not establish a causal nexus between the court’s bifurcation/denial of continuance and her decision to sign the agreement.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Settlements incorporated into judgments are difficult to overturn; show clear, contemporaneous evidence (objective coercion, proof of incapacity, or procedural impropriety) if seeking rescission.
- Preserve a full record of communications and any objections when counsel seeks withdrawal or when continuances are denied. Credibility findings are dispositive on appeal.
- When alleging duress, identify specific coercive conduct and causal connection to signing.
- Anticipate limited appellate relief from discovery-limiting and interlocutory trial-management rulings absent clear prejudice or abuse of discretion.
- Note: Rule 23 decision — not precedent except as allowed by the rule.