In re Marriage of Plier, 2024 IL App (1st) 230941-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Plier, 2024 IL App (1st) 230941‑U (1st Dist. Feb. 22, 2024) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Lori K. Plier. Respondent‑Appellee: David G. Plier.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) unambiguously required Lori to receive 50% of David’s 401(k) “as of the date of entry of the Judgment” without deducting prior loans/withdrawals/transfers.
2) Whether the trial court properly enforced the Judgment and amended the QDRO to reflect the court’s construction of the MSA.
3) Whether extrinsic (prove‑up) testimony could be considered to alter the MSA’s terms.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The MSA was unambiguous: Lori was entitled to 50% of the 401(k) account balance as of May 27, 2022 (the judgment date). Extrinsic evidence was not admissible to vary the unambiguous agreement, and the trial court properly ordered amendment of the QDRO to effectuate that valuation. (Note: Rule 23 order — not precedent.)

- Significant legal reasoning (short)
• Contract‑construction principles govern MSAs; primary aim is to give effect to parties’ intent as expressed in the agreement.
• Where MSA language is clear and unambiguous, courts must enforce it and may not consider parol/extrinsic evidence. The court applied de novo review.
• The MSA said Lori “shall be entitled to 50% of this 401(k) account as of the date of entry of the Judgment.” Because the MSA said nothing about excluding loans/withdrawals/transfers when computing that balance, the plain language required using the actual account balance on the valuation date.
• The statutory rule (750 ILCS 5/502(b)) was cited: terms of an MSA incorporated in judgment are binding and prevail over inconsistent prove‑up testimony.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
• Draft explicitly: state valuation date, define “account balance,” and specify treatment of loans, withdrawals, loans outstanding, transfers, interest, and subaccounts when dividing retirement accounts.
• When counsel drafts a QDRO, ensure its language mirrors the MSA precisely (or expressly adjusts it per agreement) before prove‑up; an incorporated MSA controls.
• Beware: prove‑up testimony cannot be used to change clear written MSA terms incorporated into a judgment.
• Even if a QDRO is later amended, obtain clear court orders reflecting the contractual language to avoid enforcement disputes.
• Remember this is a Rule 23 order (non‑precedential); persuasive only.