In re Marriage of Rapp, 2023 IL App (5th) 220347-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Rapp, 2023 IL App (5th) 220347‑U. Petitioner/Appellee: Andrea Renea Rapp. Respondent/Appellant: Raymond C. Rapp.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether a binding settlement/agreement existed (enforceability of an agreed supplemental judgment) despite defendant’s refusal to sign.
2. Whether Raymond’s previously designated nonmarital assets were transmuted into marital property by commingling proceeds into a court‑ordered trust/IOLTA account.

- Holding / outcome
The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court’s enforcement of the parties’ settlement (denying Raymond’s motion to vacate) and the circuit court’s grant of Andrea’s motion to strike. The court reversed the circuit court’s conclusion that Raymond’s nonmarital assets transmuted to marital property, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with that reversal.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Settlement enforcement: The appellate court concluded the trial judge did not err in finding a binding agreement. Multiple settlement conferences, the exchange of a proposed judgment, docket entries reflecting that the parties were “close to settlement” and then agreed on terms, and the judge’s factual findings supported that the parties manifested mutual assent. Raymond’s later refusal to sign did not negate an otherwise binding settlement reached in court and reflected on the record and through counsel. The court rejected Raymond’s alternative unconscionability argument because he failed to show the requisite procedural/substantive defects rendering the agreement unenforceable.
- Transmutation: The appellate court held the trial court’s finding that nonmarital assets were transmuted by commingling into the child support trust was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Prior stipulations characterizing assets as nonmarital and the record did not demonstrate the necessary intent to gift or treat the nonmarital property as marital. Mere commingling/placement into an IOLTA or constructive trust, without clearer proof of relinquishment of separate‑property character, was insufficient to support transmutation.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Obtain clear, written, and signed settlement documents and have them entered on the record to avoid post‑agreement disputes; counsel’s conduct and court docketing matter.
- When representing clients with separate property, avoid unnecessary commingling of proceeds; if funds must be held in counsel’s trust, specify in writing the character of funds and preserve tracing.
- If relying on transmutation claims, develop evidence of intent to convert separate assets (not merely commingling).
- When settlements may implicate bankruptcy or third‑party rights, coordinate with those counsel before placing terms on the record.