In re Marriage of Plancon, 2023 IL App (1st) 220510-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Plancon, 2023 IL App (1st) 220510-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 29, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Amanda Plancon. Respondent‑Appellee: Michael Plancon.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a collateral attack under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 (reformation for mutual mistake/newly discovered evidence) was proper to alter a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that awarded Amanda 100% of Michael’s BP Retirement Accumulation Plan (BP RAP).
- Whether Michael met the burden to show newly discovered evidence or mutual mistake justifying reformation after Amanda elected a lump‑sum cash‑out.

3) Holding/outcome
- Reversed. The appellate court held Michael failed to carry his burden that newly discovered evidence or a mutual mistake justified relief under section 2‑1401; the trial court’s reformation was erroneous.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard: Section 2‑1401 relief requires proof of newly discovered evidence or mutual mistake that could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence.
- The record demonstrated Michael knew, or should have known, that the BP RAP could be monetized in multiple forms (annuity, partial lump sum, lump sum). Evidence: pre‑divorce meeting with a Fidelity representative that explicitly listed lump‑sum/partial lump‑sum options and plan literature/handbook (which Michael admitted he received), and the MSA/QDRO language that contemplated alternate‑payee election options and potential early retirement subsidy.
- Fidelity approved the QDRO and notified Amanda of an estimated one‑time lump‑sum value (~$440,124) and other payment options; this showed the distribution option was available and known to the payor/payee.
- Michael offered only Amanda’s testimony and his affidavit; he did not introduce evidence that the cash‑out option was unknowable before entry of judgment. The court emphasized that Amanda’s choice to take a lump sum and tax consequences were foreseeable and that perceived “windfall” alone does not meet the statutory standard for reformation.
- Because Michael failed to prove the requisite newly discovered evidence or due diligence, reformation was not justified.

5) Practice implications (for family attorneys)
- Obtain and review plan documents, vendor benefit summaries, and communications from plan administrators before finalizing MSA valuations.
- Include explicit MSA/QDRO language specifying: valuation date, form of payment (annuity vs. lump sum), who decides payment form, tax allocation, consent/restriction on cash‑outs, and procedures if vendor’s valuation differs.
- Secure written representations/disclosures from clients about known plan options; consider pension valuation reports or expert testimony when values vary by form of distribution.
- When relying on monthly statements, confirm whether stated “balance” equals available cash‑out, and obtain plan administrator confirmation to avoid later claims of mistake.
- Use restraining provisions or expedited contempt/enforcement procedures if post‑judgment distributions occur contrary to court orders.