In re Marriage of Moore, 2024 IL App (4th) 230874-U

In re Marriage of Moore, 2024 IL App (4th) 230874‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Moore, No. 4‑23‑0874 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Feb. 15, 2024) (Rule 23 order, not precedent).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Erin Moore. Respondent‑Appellee: Christopher Moore.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a court may enforce an alleged in‑court settlement (MSA, parenting plan, proposed judgment) where petitioner later disavows assent.
- Whether the settlement’s maintenance, child support, and parenting‑time provisions were unconscionable.
- Whether petitioner entered the agreement under duress or without sufficient financial disclosure.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not err in entering judgment pursuant to the parties’ settlement. Petitioner failed to show the agreement was unconscionable or entered into under duress.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court credited the trial court’s factual findings that the parties reached an agreement on April 6, 2021. Although no transcript of the April 6 hearing existed (recording device not turned on), testimony from counsel and the parties supported that a settlement was announced.
- The court applied familiar principles: settlement agreements are enforceable if entered knowingly and voluntarily. To avoid enforcement, a party must present clear proof of duress, coercion, or unconscionability (both procedural and substantive components).
- Duress/coercion: petitioner’s testimony that she lacked understanding or was pressured (e.g., counsel’s alleged thumb‑up, later inability to work with original counsel) was insufficient to rebut the trial court’s finding of voluntary assent. Presence of counsel, participation in negotiations, and post‑settlement communications undermined the duress claim.
- Unconscionability: the court observed that maintenance and child support figures fell within a range that could be explained by the parties’ competing calculations (salary vs. K‑1 distributions) and negotiated resolution (including a 21.7% allocation of K‑1 distributions). Petitioner did not show terms so one‑sided as to be unconscionable, nor did she establish material nondisclosure of assets preventing informed assent.

5. Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Put settlements on the record: reduce all material terms to an on‑the‑record recitation or obtain signed MSA/parenting plan before leaving court.
- Confirm client’s informed assent: ensure clients expressly acknowledge understanding the deal and sign documents; document disclosure of financials.
- When dividing volatile income (K‑1s, bonuses), draft explicit calculation/later‑adjustment mechanisms (percentages, true‑up procedures).
- If opposing enforcement, be prepared with concrete proof of coercion, lack of disclosure, or stark substantive unfairness—mere buyer’s remorse is unlikely to suffice.
- Preserve the record: make sure courtroom recordings/transcripts are available; absence of a transcript places reliance on witness testimony and risks credibility findings adverse to your client.