In re Marriage of Reynolds, 2023 IL App (1st) 220450-U

- Case: In re Marriage of Reynolds, No. 1-22-0450 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 31, 2023) (Rule 23 order — not precedent)
- Parties: Michelle Reynolds aka Michelle Hanson (plaintiff-appellant) v. Christopher Reynolds (defendant-appellee)

Key legal issues
- Whether the husband breached an agreed order by failing to pay statutory post-judgment interest when the agreed order was silent about interest.
- Proper construction of an agreed order (treated as a contract) and the availability of extrinsic evidence.

Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err in finding no breach of the agreed order because the order was silent as to statutory interest. (The trial court separately found the wife had not waived her right to statutory interest and ordered interest to be paid, but that ruling was not before the appellate court because only the wife appealed the breach finding.)

Significant legal reasoning
- Agreed orders are contractual in nature and thus interpreted under contract principles; their plain language controls unless ambiguous.
- The agreed order expressly set a $35,000 judgment, monthly $1,700 payments, and a late-payment penalty provision; it contained no provision about post-judgment interest or how payments would be allocated between interest and principal.
- Because the order was unambiguous and silent on interest, the court would not add terms or impute an obligation the parties did not express. Extrinsic evidence may be considered only if contractual language is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.
- Standards of review: contract interpretation reviewed de novo; factual findings (e.g., whether payments were timely) reviewed for manifest weight. The record showed the husband made the stipulated monthly payments and satisfied the $35,000 principal under the agreed terms.
- The trial court nonetheless found (separately) that the wife had not waived statutory interest and entered judgment for interest — a remedy distinct from breach of the settlement terms.

Practice implications (concise)
- Draft agreed orders to expressly address post-judgment interest: state whether statutory interest applies, its accrual date, rate, computation method, and whether payments are first applied to interest or principal.
- If parties intend to waive interest or limit remedies for late payment, say so expressly and require mutual signature/acknowledgment.
- Specify late-payment mechanics and whether penalties are in lieu of or in addition to statutory interest.
- Treat agreed orders as binding contracts; avoid relying on extrinsic pleadings or conduct to supply terms absent ambiguity.
- Note Rule 23 status: this decision is non-precedential and binding only on the parties.