In re Marriage of Landgren, 2022 IL App (2d) 210408-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Landgren, 2022 IL App (2d) 210408‑U (Order filed May 24, 2023) (Rule 23(b) non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Diane Landgren. Respondent‑Appellee: Roy Landgren. Appeal from Du Page County (decree of dissolution entered Mar. 7, 2016).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly dismissed post‑dissolution motions (a motion for an accounting/to compel disclosure and a motion to distribute/for disgorgement) under section 2‑619.1 where the marital settlement agreement (MSA) allegedly created a trust and named husband as trustee.
- Whether the petitioner adequately pleaded breach of fiduciary duties and damages to survive dismissal.
- Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend while an appeal was pending.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of the accounting and distribution motions and remanded for further proceedings. The court dismissed as moot the appeal challenging the denial of leave to amend (because the issue became academic). Trial court’s reliance on waiver of discovery and analogy to a 2‑1401 attack was improper at the dismissal stage.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA contained express language that Roy would “hold Diane’s beneficial interest … as a constructive trustee” and to provide Diane all documents and notice of calls/decisions — language the court found capable of creating trustee obligations and fiduciary duties.
- On a 2‑619.1 dismissal, the pleadings must be viewed to determine whether petitioner stated facts that, if proven, would entitle her to relief. The appellate court concluded Diane sufficiently pleaded breach of fiduciary duty (failure to disclose interests, failure to provide documents, discrepancies in disclosed ownership percentages after a later corporate transaction) to require discovery and an accounting. Although some damage allegations were speculative at that stage, that alone did not justify dismissal with prejudice because it was not evident she could not prove compensable injury.
- The trial court erred in treating the motion as a collateral attack (akin to a 2‑1401 petition) or as barred by a pre‑divorce discovery waiver in the MSA; enforcement and accounting issues can proceed post‑judgment where an express trustee relationship is alleged.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs carefully: express trustee language will create fiduciary duties and post‑judgment obligations; parties should be clear about record‑sharing and dispute resolution.
- Avoid blanket discovery waivers if post‑judgment verification or accounting might be needed; include explicit procedures for post‑closing disclosures and audits.
- When alleging concealed or misrepresented assets post‑dissolution, plead facts showing the trust-like role or fiduciary duty and factual assertions supporting damages to survive early dismissal.
- Distinguish remedies: enforcement (rule to show cause) and accounting/disgorgement are viable post‑judgment where fiduciary duties exist — courts should not automatically treat such claims as untimely 2‑1401 attacks.