In re Marriage of Krilich, 2023 IL App (1st) 221198

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Krilich, 2023 IL App (1st) 221198 (1st Dist., First Div.), No. 1‑22‑1198 (filed Mar. 6, 2023; modified Apr. 24, 2023). Judgment affirmed.
- Petitioners/Appellees: Sandra Schnakenburg (executor of Lillian Krilich’s estate) and the Krilich children. Respondents/Appellants: Donna J. Krilich and Walter L. Morgan (named co‑personal representatives of decedent Robert R. Krilich’s estate).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether an Illinois circuit court has subject‑matter jurisdiction to enforce a 1985 Illinois dissolution judgment (which retained jurisdiction) against the estate of a deceased former spouse domiciled in Florida.
- Whether Illinois courts have personal jurisdiction over non‑resident estate representatives (appellants) named in a Cook County enforcement action.
- Interaction between enforcement of a domestic‑relations judgment and parallel probate/estate administration in a foreign state.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondents’ motion to dismiss. Illinois courts retain jurisdiction to enforce their dissolution judgments even after the obligor’s death and despite the obligor’s foreign domicile; dismissal for lack of personal or subject‑matter jurisdiction was improper on the record before the court.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court relied principally on Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291 (2000): where a dissolution judgment expressly retains jurisdiction, the domestic court has inherent equitable power to enforce its orders (including against an estate) and death does not render the remedy unavailable.
- The court distinguished Keats v. Cates (1968) — which limited interstate interference with foreign probate where jurisdiction rested only on a contract to make a will — because here the relief is enforcement of a court judgment (not merely contract) that expressly preserved the court’s power.
- Petitioners alleged specific Illinois contacts (Illinois corporations/LLCs and Illinois real property tied to the decedent) sufficient to raise factual issues about the situs of estate assets and to support proceeding in Illinois; the action was brought against the estate (through its Illinois‑named representatives), not the individuals in their private capacities.
- Because the trial court retained jurisdiction and factual disputes existed, dismissal at the pleading stage was inappropriate.

5) Practice implications
- Enforcement: Practitioners seeking post‑death enforcement of marital settlement provisions should invoke the dissolution judgment’s retained‑jurisdiction language and Smithberg’s equitable authority.
- Defense: Estate representatives should promptly develop the factual record on situs of assets and move for a stay or coordinate with foreign probate courts; Keats remains relevant where the claim is purely contractual/probate‑based without a preserved judicial enforcement right.
- Drafting: Divorce decrees should explicitly retain jurisdiction and describe testator obligations; wills/estate planners should be mindful that noncompliant wills may be challenged in the forum that issued the divorce judgment.
- Procedure: Use Rule 306 interlocutory review carefully — denial of a jurisdictional dismissal is appealable, but appellate courts focus on whether factual allegations raise triable jurisdictional issues.