In re Marriage of Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Prill, 2021 IL App (1st) 200516.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Jane S. Prill. Respondent-Appellee: David R. Prill.

2. Key legal issues
- Enforceability of a postnuptial agreement: whether the agreement was procedurally and/or substantively unconscionable and therefore unenforceable.
- Sufficiency of negotiation, counsel access, disclosure and alleged duress/overreaching in the post-execution context.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed the trial court: the postnuptial agreement was enforceable. The trial court’s finding that the agreement was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable was upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedural unconscionability: court relied on evidence that Jane had opportunities to consult counsel (she consulted two attorneys; one proposed revisions that David accepted), negotiated terms (changes were made and accepted), signed outside David’s presence, and repeatedly participated in preparing balance sheets. The trial court found Jane’s duress/ coercion testimony not credible.
- Substantive unconscionability: although the court acknowledged the agreement was “not fair” (Jane received a small percentage of the marital estate under demonstrative valuations), fairness alone did not satisfy the unconscionability standard. The court required more than an uneven allocation; it required proof that the terms were so one-sided as to be unconscionable in context of procedural unfairness — which was not established.
- Disclosure and valuation: there were no schedules attached to the agreement, but both parties had developed balance sheets during negotiations and Jane agreed the demonstrative valuation was accurate; the court did not treat absence of attached valuations as dispositive.
- Credibility and factual record controls: the court placed heavy weight on witness credibility (trial court found Jane’s claim she signed under threats incredible) and on the documented negotiation history.

5. Practice implications (bullet points)
- For counsel drafting agreements: fully document negotiations, provide/attach detailed asset/liability schedules and valuations, allow independent counsel for the other spouse, memorialize that the spouse had time and opportunity to consult counsel, and avoid any conduct that could be characterized as coercive.
- For counsel attacking agreements: develop a concrete record of coercion/duress, show inadequate disclosure or misleading valuations, obtain contemporaneous communications and witness testimony to challenge credibility, and quantify why the allocation is not merely unfair but unconscionable.
- Procedural note: trial court’s Rule 304(a) finding can permit immediate appeal of declaratory enforcement rulings—plan litigation strategy accordingly.
- Practical takeaway: courts will enforce postnuptial agreements that reflect negotiation and counsel access even if allocations are lopsided; documentation and credibility are decisive.