In re Marriage of Mitchell
Full Case Summary
Case
In re the Marriage of: Rhet Mitchell and Burnetta Herron
Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 240562‑U (Order filed Aug. 21, 2025)
Court & Panel: Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., 4th Div.; Presiding Justice Rochford; Justices Lyle & Ocasio concur.
Lower court: Cir. Ct. of Cook County, No. 2020 D 7035 (Judge Lloyd James Brooks).
Consolidated appeals: Nos. 1‑24‑0562 & 1‑24‑0900.
Procedural posture & primary issue
This appeal follows a bench trial in a dissolution action. The principal contested issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred by granting an in limine ruling that barred respondent (Herron) from introducing evidence to prove reimbursement under a prenuptial agreement (PNA) for household and family living expenses paid during the marriage prior to Jan. 1, 2015 (May 8, 2010–Dec. 31, 2014).
PNA and factual background
Key PNA term: Paragraph 2.E required equal contributions to “household and family living expenses during the marriage” and gave a right to reimbursement at dissolution if a party failed to comply. The parties married May 8, 2010, and divorced Dec. 27, 2022. They bought a new home Aug. 22, 2019 and separated Aug. 31, 2019. Two children; respondent drafted the PNA.
Forensic accounting & disputed evidence
Expert: Amber Rychetsky prepared a voluminous spreadsheet (transactions May 2010–Dec. 31, 2021) categorizing 8–12 expense types. Her calculations yielded reimbursements in excess of $500,000 (depending on categories). The petitioner challenged the report as speculative and unreliable (missing records, no interview, assumptions treating many charges as reimbursable). The trial court found the report unreliable in important respects but useful for establishing payment history.
Trial-court rulings
- The court denied petitioner’s motion to exclude the report in its entirety but, by a July 7, 2022 in limine order, barred respondent from presenting evidence of reimbursement for expenses paid before Jan. 1, 2015. - The court admitted Rychetsky’s work for the period Jan. 1, 2015–Dec. 27, 2022 and, after weighing evidence and applying parol evidence, awarded respondent reimbursement for post‑2014 expenses (amended judgment awarding $58,988.65). - The court found the PNA term “household and family living expenses” ambiguous, construed ambiguity against the drafter (respondent), and—relying on petitioner’s credible testimony about conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015—limited reimbursable categories to those reflected by the parties’ agreements and conduct. - The court denied reconsideration of the mortgage allocation and sanctioned respondent for filing a defective financial affidavit (sanction not challenged on appeal).Trial-court factual findings on allocation
Home valued at $890,000 (each party’s nominal share $445,000); mortgage balance ~$712,050. The court allocated the mortgage by income: respondent ~64.7% (≈$460,697) and petitioner ~35.3% (≈$251,354). Offsetting the petitioner’s mortgage share against his $445,000 interest produced a buyout award to petitioner of $193,646.05. The trial court affirmed various expense‑sharing allocations based on the parol evidence described above.
Appellate holdings
- Vacated and remanded: The appellate court vacated the July 7, 2022 in limine order and the portion of the August 2, 2023 judgment adjudicating respondent’s reimbursement claims to the extent they excluded all evidence for May 8, 2010–Dec. 31, 2014. The court held the blanket exclusion was an abuse of discretion because the record included Rychetsky’s extensive transaction listings that warranted consideration; the case was remanded for further proceedings on reimbursement for that earlier period, with any additional award to be added to the $58,988.65 already awarded for post‑2014 expenses. - Affirmed: The court upheld the trial court’s interpretation of the PNA as ambiguous and its permissive use of parol evidence (the parties’ 2010, 2013, 2015 conversations) to define which expenses qualified; it also affirmed the mortgage allocation, buyout calculation, and related factual credibility determinations. - Sanctions: Appellant forfeited review of the sanctions order by not challenging it in her brief (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7)).Legal principles applied
Prenuptial agreements are contracts judged by ordinary contract rules: plain language controls, parol evidence is permitted only if language is ambiguous, and ambiguities are construed against the drafter. Appellate review was de novo on contract interpretation and abuse‑of‑discretion for evidentiary rulings, with deference to trial‑court credibility findings.
Disposition
Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part; remanded for further proceedings on respondent’s reimbursement claims for May 8, 2010–Dec. 31, 2014. The mortgage allocation and related property division were affirmed.
Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Mitchell? Ask our AI assistant below.