In re Marriage of Riaz, 2025 IL App (1st) 241295-U

In re Marriage of Riaz, 2025 IL App (1st) 241295‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Riaz, No. 1‑24‑1295, 2025 IL App (1st) 241295‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 3, 2025).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Amerah Riaz. Respondent‑Appellee: Kashif Riaz.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a medical‑malpractice claim arising from treatment during the marriage but prosecuted and settled after entry of the dissolution judgment constituted an undisclosed marital asset subject to allocation under the marital settlement agreement (MSA).
- Whether the MSA’s general release/waiver language or petitioner’s knowledge of respondent’s injuries precluded petitioner from asserting a claim to that post‑dissolution recovery.
- Whether dismissal under 735 ILCS 5/2‑615 and/or 2‑619 was proper at the pleading stage.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. It held that petitioner’s claim for a share of respondent’s $3.85M malpractice settlement was not barred by the MSA because the malpractice claim was not disclosed during the dissolution and dismissal was improper.

4) Significant legal reasoning (short form)
- Marital settlement agreements are contractual and construed under ordinary contract rules; interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo.
- The court emphasized the MSA provision requiring disclosure of all assets and the express clause that undisclosed assets would be split 50/50. Because respondent did not disclose the potential malpractice claim during dissolution (he retained counsel pre‑judgment but filed suit post‑judgment), the undisclosed‑asset provision could apply.
- The trial court had accepted respondent’s argument that petitioner’s awareness of his injuries equated to knowledge of a possible malpractice claim and that the release waived future claims. The appellate court rejected the short‑circuiting of that inquiry at the pleading stage: awareness of an injury is not necessarily equivalent to knowledge of a viable malpractice claim or a knowing waiver of a latent asset. Whether concealment, waiver, or other defenses apply involves factual development and cannot be resolved by dismissal where the complaint adequately alleges nondisclosure.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Thorough discovery and express contractual language matter: expressly address unknown/latent claims (medical, malpractice, claims against third parties) in MSAs and consider specific waivers, indemnities, and representations regarding known/unknown causes of action.
- If an opposing party retained counsel or had facts suggesting a claim, obtain clear written disclosures or negotiated allocations for future recoveries.
- When a post‑dissolution recovery surfaces, consider an allocation petition rather than relying solely on broad release language; defenses such as waiver or concealment require factual development—avoid premature 2‑619 strategy without a developed record.
- Plead fraudulent concealment with specificity if appropriate; preserve medical records, timelines, and proof of what was actually disclosed in dissolution discovery.