In re Marriage of Levy, 2022 IL App (2d) 210527-U

Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Levy, 2022 IL App (2d) 210527‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Nov. 29, 2022) (Rule 23(b) non‑precedential). Petitioner/Appellee: Molly Levy. Respondent/Appellant: Josh Levy.

Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition to vacate a default dissolution judgment.
- Whether respondent’s asserted mental illness (delusions) or petitioner’s alleged nondisclosure amounted to equitable grounds to relax section 2‑1401’s due diligence requirement.
- Whether the default judgment’s awards of 100% of marital property and large maintenance/child‑support obligations were substantively unconscionable.
- Enforcement of respondent’s withdrawals from a Section 529 college‑savings account.

Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held respondent failed to meet section 2‑1401 standards and did not show grounds to excuse lack of diligence. The trial court properly denied vacation of the default dissolution. The trial court’s enforcement award of approximately $102,488 (amount withdrawn from the 529 plan) for the benefit of the child was affirmed.

Significant legal reasoning
- Standard for relief under 2‑1401 requires (1) meritorious defense, (2) due diligence in presenting that defense, and (3) diligence in filing the petition. Equity may relax due‑diligence in rare circumstances (fraud, unconscionable advantage), but the petitioner must demonstrate that extraordinary unfairness occurred.
- The court rejected respondent’s contention that mental illness excused his default because he produced no psychiatric/medical proof and cited no authority that mere allegations of delusion suffice to relax due diligence. The court declined to find petitioner’s conduct (alleged nondisclosure) rose to fraud or such unfairness as to void due‑diligence requirements.
- On substantive unconscionability, the panel emphasized the record of respondent’s historic income (tax returns showing substantial income in earlier years) and other financial evidence; the default judgment’s property and support awards were not so one‑sided as to be “totally one‑sided” or otherwise unconscionable.
- The trial court properly awarded restitution for withdrawals from the child’s 529 plan.

Practice implications
- A 2‑1401 petition based on incapacity requires affirmative, contemporaneous medical/psychiatric evidence; unsupported assertions of delusion are unlikely to excuse a default.
- Allegations that the other side concealed a disability will seldom relieve the non‑appearing party absent clear evidence of fraud, deception, or coercion.
- Default dissolution judgments that include large awards will be upheld where the record (tax returns, bank statements) supports the trial court’s findings.
- Counsel seeking post‑judgment relief should develop a full evidentiary record (experts, financial proof) and be prepared to show both diligence and a meritorious defense.