In re Marriage of Mast, 2022 IL App (4th) 210363-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Mast, 2022 IL App (4th) 210363-U (Ill. App. Ct. May 6, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Mary Jo Mast. Respondent‑Appellee: Steve J. Mast.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether Loos Farm was properly classified as respondent’s nonmarital property.
2. Whether the marital estate is entitled to reimbursement for marital‑period payments on a pre‑marital contract for deed for Loos Farm.
3. Whether awarding all marital equity in Howell Farm to respondent violated a stipulation in the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) calling for a 50/50 division.
4. Whether the court properly applied a $231,795 credit in light of 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(2)(A).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: affirmed the trial court’s classification of Loos Farm as respondent’s nonmarital property; reversed and remanded because the trial court erred in failing to order reimbursement to the marital estate for marital‑period payments on the contract for deed for Loos Farm; otherwise affirmed. The court also held the MSA could govern allocation of the $231,795 credit even if it departs from §503(c)(2)(A).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Classification: The court found no manifest error in concluding Loos Farm was nonmarital under §503(a)(6) (purchased under contract for deed before marriage and title remained in respondent’s name) and §503(a)(7) (post‑marriage increase in value of nonmarital property).
- Reimbursement: Even where an asset is nonmarital, §503(c) permits reimbursement for marital contributions to nonmarital property. The trial court failed to address reimbursement although evidence showed marital‑period payments (checks drawn on a farm account opened pre‑marriage but used during marriage with petitioner added to the account and paying bills), including specific checks admitted into evidence. The appellate court remanded for quantification and adjustment.
- Marital settlement agreement: The MSA’s 50/50 stipulation binds the court (750 ILCS 5/502(b)). Awarding all equity in one parcel does not automatically breach the stipulation if the overall division remains equal; on remand the court must consider reimbursement adjustments to preserve the agreed division.
- Statutory credit: Parties may contract around the allocation mechanics of §503(c)(2)(A); the MSA’s method of applying the $231,795 credit (deducted from petitioner’s share) was enforceable.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Preserve and produce clear records tracing payments on contracts for deed; title date alone may not defeat marital reimbursement claims.
- When arguing nonmarital character for pre‑marital contracts, address both statutory tests and any marital contributions that could trigger §503(c) reimbursement.
- Draft MSAs with explicit language about reimbursement mechanics and credit application (and the effect on the overall division) to avoid later readjustment.
- Be aware that parties can contractually depart from statutory allocation formulas; ensure express client assent and clear calculation examples.
- Where property was acquired pre‑marriage but paid from accounts used for marital expenses, be prepared to litigate commingling and reimbursement quantification on remand.