In re Marriage of Reicher, 2021 IL App (2d) 200454

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Reicher, 2021 IL App (2d) 200454.
- Petitioner/Counterrespondent-Appellee: Michael K. Reicher III. Respondent/Counterpetitioner-Appellant: Laura A. Reicher.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in quashing subpoenas (to Michael’s employer and Fidelity) issued in aid of Laura’s post‑judgment petition to compel Michael’s compliance with the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA).
- Whether the trial court properly dismissed Laura’s petition to compel enforcement of the MSA (alleging undisclosed Fidelity accounts, unpaid/calculation documentation for Michael’s 2016 bonus, and entitlement to 2016 equity awards).
- Whether contract terms in the MSA, and prior orders, preclude the requested relief.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court dismissed that portion of the appeal challenging the quashed subpoenas (because the record lacked a transcript or adequate statement of proceedings regarding the hearing on the quash).
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of Laura’s petition to compel compliance with the MSA (i.e., the substantive enforcement claims failed). The record did not permit reversal as to the subpoena ruling; the substantive dismissal was sustained. The parties’ dispute over sanctions remained a separate issue below.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Incorporation/contract interpretation: The MSA was incorporated into the final dissolution judgment; its plain terms govern post‑judgment rights and remedies. The court read the MSA (and later agreed order resolving some equity awards) and concluded obligations were either satisfied, specifically addressed, or limited by MSA time‑bars.
- Pleading standards: Under section 2‑615, Laura’s petition failed to state a claim for relief because it did not allege facts showing Michael’s present noncompliance with enforceable MSA duties. Under section 2‑619(a)(4), the petition was barred to the extent the MSA/final judgment and the parties’ prior agreed order conclusively resolved the contested equity/bonus issues or set contractual time limits for objections that Laura did not meet.
- Appellate review limitations: Without a transcript or agreed statement of proceedings for the hearing where subpoenas were quashed, the appellate court could not review or overturn that discovery ruling and therefore dismissed that portion of the appeal.

5) Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Preserve the record: obtain a transcript or prepare an agreed statement of proceedings when appealing discovery rulings—failure to do so will foreclose appellate review.
- Draft MSAs with clear enforcement, verification, and objection procedures and explicit remedies for noncompliance (including deadlines and whether post‑judgment discovery is permitted).
- When seeking post‑judgment relief, plead concrete facts showing current noncompliance with an enforceable post‑judgment obligation; contract time‑bars and prior agreed orders can operate as bars to relief.
- Use agreed orders carefully: they can resolve and foreclose later claims. Consider obtaining express reservation of enforcement remedies if future ambiguity is possible.