In re Marriage of Morrison, 2020 IL App (2d) 200068-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Morrison, 2020 IL App (2d) 200068-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Dec. 29, 2020) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Jennifer Johnson Morrison. Respondent-Appellant: James P. Morrison.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court properly found respondent in indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with marital settlement agreement (MSA) provisions requiring transfer (or sale) of Best In Class Care, Inc. (BICC) stock and production of related documents. 2) Whether a contempt finding is proper where the underlying order lacks a clear purge mechanism for the alleged contemptuous act(s).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It upheld the contempt finding insofar as respondent failed to make reasonable/best efforts to effectuate the stock transfer and failed to produce required documents generally. It reversed the contempt finding to the extent it was based on failure to produce documents relating to certain stock where the order contained no purge provision for those documents.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The MSA allocated respondent’s interest in Polaris and a share of Polaris’s BICC stock to petitioner, with detailed mechanisms for transfer, exercise, and distribution of net proceeds. The trial court found petitioner’s motion (and evidence) sufficient to shift the burden to respondent to show he had made reasonable efforts to comply. Respondent’s failure to make written requests, his belated production of documents (including a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement dated Sept. 30, 2017 produced only in Jan. 2019), and evidence that he had not effected transfers justified an indirect civil contempt finding as to transfer obligations and general document production. The appellate court explained, however, that civil contempt orders must be coercive and allow the contemnor to purge; where the trial order imposed contempt without an express purge pathway tied to specific documentary obligations, the contempt ruling on that narrow point was erroneous.

- Practice implications for practitioners
- Draft MSAs and dissolution orders with clear, mandatory mechanics for transfer (timelines, written request protocols, who must sign, who pays taxes/commissions), and include an explicit cash‑out alternative and precise remedial amounts.
- When seeking enforcement, obtain and attach governing third‑party documents (shareholder/operating agreements) and pursue early discovery to establish transferability and consent requirements.
- When asking for contempt, ensure the court order contains a specific, executory directive and an explicit purge provision (what the contemnor must do to avoid sanction) so any civil contempt will be sustainable on appeal.
- Preserve contemporaneous proof of “best efforts” (written requests, communications with other members/shareholders, refusals, etc.).