In re Marriage of Lewin, 2023 IL App (4th) 221060-U

In re Marriage of Lewin, No. 4‑22‑1060 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Sept. 28, 2023) (Rule 23 — non‑precedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Lewin, 2023 IL App (4th) 221060‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Fanny S. Lewin (n/k/a Levitt). Respondent‑Appellee: Pierre H. Lewin. Appeal from post‑dissolution orders enforcing provisions of the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) relating to children’s college funds (529 plans and irrevocable trusts).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence about the children’s irrevocable trusts as irrelevant.
- Whether Fanny had an unencumbered right to withdraw and retain funds in 529 accounts she controlled despite the MSA provisions designating those accounts for the children and waiving parental claims.
- Whether the court properly found Fanny in indirect civil contempt for refusing to transfer a 529 account after the child’s graduation.
- Whether requiring transfer of a 529 account and awarding Pierre’s attorney fees was reversible error.

3) Holding/outcome
- The Fourth District affirmed. The appellant failed to show any irregularity warranting reversal. The trial court’s evidentiary rulings, contempt determination, transfer order, and attorney‑fee award were upheld.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA (paragraphs 12–13) expressly allocated college funds/irrevocable trusts to the children for post‑secondary expenses and contained an express parental waiver of claims. The trial court’s June 2021 order was characterized as a clarification and prospective enforcement protocol for paying college expenses under the existing MSA, not a substantive modification that returned ownership to the parents.
- The trial court excluded evidence of the irrevocable trusts as not relevant to the enforcement and contempt issues pending because the MSA controlled the dispute over 529 funds and the trusts did not alter that analysis.
- Contempt requires a willful failure to comply; the court found Fanny withdrew substantial funds from a 529 she controlled after the clarification order and refused to transfer the account to the graduate, supporting an indirect civil contempt finding and remedial relief (transfer and fees). The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings and discretion on evidentiary and contempt matters and found no abuse of discretion.

5) Practice implications
- Parties should promptly and expressly seek modification of an MSA (and pursue separate pleadings) if they assert a mistake in ownership language; mere later enforcement hearings may not cure or alter substantive MSA terms.
- Preserve relevance and foundational support for evidence about third‑party trust instruments; trial courts will exclude collateral trust documents if they do not bear on enforcement of the MSA.
- Do not unilaterally withdraw or divert 529 funds when an MSA allocates them to children or provides a parental waiver—such conduct risks contempt findings, mandatory transfer, and fee shifting.
- Appellate courts will defer to trial courts on credibility, contempt findings, and routine evidentiary rulings; Rule 23 status limits precedential value but the practical lessons remain important.