In re Marriage of Nguyen, 2023 IL App (1st) 221045-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Nguyen, 2023 IL App (1st) 221045‑U (1st Dist. Mar. 29, 2023) (Rule 23 order; not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)). Petitioner‑Appellee: Tori Nguyen. Respondent‑Appellant: Viet Nguyen.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a marital settlement agreement (MSA) provision conditioning continued custodianship of UTMA/Transfers to Minors Act accounts was enforceable or void as against public policy for allegedly waiving statutory custodian rights.
2. Whether respondent’s noncompliance with a court order enforcing that MSA justified a finding of indirect civil contempt and monetary/ coercive sanctions.
3. Procedural issues regarding appeals, finality, and proper form of responses to motions.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s finding of indirect civil contempt. Where respondent admitted violating the court order and offered no valid excuse, contempt sanctions were affirmed. (Earlier interlocutory appeals were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; later contempt orders were appealed and consolidated.)

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court properly enforced paragraph 7 of the MSA (which named Viet custodian of four Transfers to Minors Act accounts subject to conditions: account statements to petitioner, mutual written agreement for investment changes, removal at age 21, and disbursements only with petitioner’s written approval for post‑high‑school education). The court found the provision was negotiated, clear, and executed with competent counsel — not the product of duress. The appellate court accepted the trial court’s factual findings and reasoning that the contractual conditions did not offend public policy and were enforceable; respondent’s challenges (materiality of breaches, unclean hands, public policy) were insufficient to excuse noncompliance. The court also rejected respondent’s contention that he need not comply because the order was “not final and appealable.” Procedurally, the opinion notes that responses styled as “answers” to motions are improper; the record must contain appealed judgments.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Draft clear, specific enforcement clauses in MSAs addressing custodianship of UTMA/Transfers to Minors Act accounts (reporting, approval processes, triggers for automatic transfer, attorney fees).
- If a party believes an enforcement order is erroneous, seek a stay or post a bond rather than willful noncompliance — noncompliance risks contempt (fines, possible commitment).
- Preserve the record: produce account statements, document requests/responses, and litigate alleged materiality at the enforcement hearing.
- Use correct procedure: oppose motions with properly framed responses and raise affirmative defenses with evidence; request Rule 304(a) language when finality/appealability is important.