In re Marriage of Menckowski, 2021 IL App (5th) 170260‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Menckowski, No. 5‑17‑0260, 2021 IL App (5th) 170260‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Nov. 1, 2021).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Theresa A. Menckowski. Respondent/Appellant: James Menckowski II.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly held Husband in indirect civil contempt for failing to refinance a mobile‑home mortgage and remove Wife’s name as required by the marital settlement agreement.
- Whether the contempt order’s purge provision (and related attorney‑fee award conditioned on compliance) was valid under Illinois law requiring that civil contemnors be given “the keys to the cell,” i.e., the sole ability to purge contempt.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the contempt finding (the trial court found Husband’s noncompliance willful) but vacated the purge provision because it required actions and cooperation by third parties (lenders/buyers/co‑signers) and therefore did not leave purging solely within Husband’s control. The portion of the contempt order directing payment of attorney fees tied to compliance with that provision was vacated as well. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that ruling.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Civil contempt is coercive; a valid contempt order must permit the contemnor to purge the sanction by his own actions (Logston “keys to his cell” principle).
- The appellate court relied on precedent (Bank of America v. Freed and subsequent cases) holding purge provisions invalid where a third party’s participation/control was required to purge contempt.
- Here, the trial court ordered refinancing within 30 days or sale within 120 days at an amount exceeding the property’s market value — outcomes realistically dependent on lenders, buyers, or co‑signers beyond Husband’s control. That dependency rendered the purge mechanism invalid.
- Because the attorney‑fee obligation was explicitly tied to compliance with the same order, that portion also could not stand.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Draft settlement and contempt remedies carefully: purge conditions must be within the contemnor’s unilateral control. Avoid conditioning purges on third‑party actions.
- When seeking enforcement of refinancing provisions, present clear evidence of the contemnor’s ability (or inability) to perform and contemporaneous attempts to refinance; courts will scrutinize whether noncompliance was willful.
- If performance realistically requires third‑party cooperation, seek alternative judicial remedies (e.g., judgment for arrearage, sale under court supervision, assignment of debt, or modification of obligations) rather than contempt with an impossible purge.
- Tie attorney‑fee sanctions to enforceable, unilateral acts or separate fee awards from compliance conditions.