In re Marriage of Poulsom, 2022 IL App (1st) 220100

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Poulsom, 2022 IL App (1st) 220100.
- Petitioner/Appellee & Cross‑Appellant: Candice G. Poulsom (n/k/a Merritt).
- Respondent/Appellant & Cross‑Appellee: Robert C. Poulsom.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly enforced two provisions of a 1995 agreed dissolution judgment: (a) compelling the forced sale of the marital residence (required to be listed by Mar. 1, 1999); and (b) ordering respondent to pay petitioner $50,946 within 30 days of the 1995 judgment.
- Whether petitioner’s monetary enforcement claim was time‑barred and whether respondent forfeited statute‑of‑limitations defenses by mislabeling his pleading. Applicable statutes debated included enforcement/revival and limitations provisions of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure (e.g., 735 ILCS 5/12‑108; revival provisions §2‑1601/2; and the statutes governing actions on written agreements and revival, §§13‑206, 13‑218).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of petitioner’s request to force sale of the marital residence.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order requiring respondent to pay $50,946, holding that petitioner’s claim for that payment was time‑barred and should have been dismissed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Credibility and property relief: The trial court’s factual findings on the residence were supported by evidence (respondent’s account of a 1999 buy‑out, a quitclaim deed, and testimony from the notary/witness). The appellate court accepted the trial court’s credibility determinations and therefore affirmed refusal to compel sale.
- Statute‑of‑limitations/revival law: The court concluded the claim to enforce the $50,946 payment was barred by applicable enforcement/revival limitations and should have been dismissed. The appellate court rejected petitioner’s contention that the statute‑of‑limitations defense was forfeited due to respondent’s labeling of his motion; because the limitations issue was presented and litigated below, it was preserved for appeal. Thus, substantive limitation/revival rules controlled, not form‑based waiver.

5. Practice implications
- Act promptly: enforcement of long‑dormant dissolution provisions risks loss under statutory enforcement/revival limits. Counsel should identify whether a post‑judgment claim is an action to enforce a judgment, a contract claim, or requires revival and plead accordingly.
- Preservation vs. form: raising the limitations defense substantively in the trial court preserves it even if the motion is imperfectly labeled. Still, plainly plead statutory grounds to avoid disputes.
- Document retention and corroboration: long‑term enforcement disputes often turn on stale records and credibility; preserve closing, bank, and deed records and secure corroborating witnesses (notaries, lenders).
- Remedy selection: where property has been transferred or a buy‑out claimed, courts will defer to credibility findings — seek contemporaneous documentary proof when possible.