In re Marriage of Rifkin, 2020 IL App (1st) 190762-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Rifkin, 2020 IL App (1st) 190762‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Elyse Rifkin. Respondent‑Appellant: Robert Rifkin. (Appeal from Cook County dissolution judgment; appeal concerns denial of a post‑judgment motion to reconsider under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1203.)

2. Key legal issues
- Whether newly discovered evidence (a 2017 “no‑asset” Chapter 7 bankruptcy of McDuffee Design Group, Inc.) justified relief from the dissolution judgment that had assigned the parties’ 10% McDuffee interest a $100,000 marital value.
- Whether the trial court erred in omitting two student loans (argued by Robert to total ≈$15,000) from marital debt.
- Standard of review for a §2‑1203 post‑judgment motion (abuse of discretion).

3. Holding/outcome
Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Robert’s §2‑1203 motion to reconsider on both the valuation and student‑loan points.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Newly discovered evidence standard: relief requires that the evidence could not have been produced at trial with due diligence. The appellate court agreed with the trial court that Robert could have discovered McDuffee’s bankruptcy pre‑trial by simple, reasonable steps (phone/email to the principal owner, subpoena of corporate records, public bankruptcy records). Constructive notice to a 10% shareholder militated against treating the bankruptcy as “newly discovered.” Thus the bankruptcy filing did not meet the §2‑1203 diligence requirement.
- Valuation evidence: absent appraisal, the trial court permissibly relied on the $100,000 purchase price and found Robert’s testimony about lack of value not credible (he had not reviewed the books and had reported some McDuffee income on his tax return).
- Student loans: the two disputed loans were not in Robert’s name and evidence suggested his payments were voluntary gifts to the child; the trial court reasonably declined to treat those obligations as marital debt.
- Standard of review: appellate court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review and found no arbitrary decision‑making.

5. Practice implications (concise takeaways for counsel)
- Diligence pre‑trial: investigate corporate status and public filings (bankruptcy records) early; obtain corporate books, K‑1s, and valuation expert testimony if valuation is contested.
- Subpoena/control evidence: use subpoenas and document requests for potentially dispositive third‑party records rather than relying on post‑judgment discovery.
- Characterize payments clearly (gift vs. debt) and produce supporting documentation at trial.
- Preserve record and follow briefing rules (Ill. S. Ct. R. 341) — pro se appellants and briefs lacking record citations are disadvantaged.
- For §2‑1203 relief, prepare to show both lack of discoverability and materiality of new evidence.