In re Marriage of Ring, 2020 IL App (1st) 191761-U

Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Ring, No. 1-19-1761, 2020 IL App (1st) 191761-U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Dec. 9, 2020). (Rule 23 order — non-precedential.)
- Petitioner/Appellee: Carol Ring. Respondent/Appellant: Barry Ring.

Key legal issues
- Construction and enforcement of a section 503(g) trust created by parties’ pretrial stipulations in an Agreed Judgment of Dissolution (750 ILCS 5/503(g)).
- Which party bore the burden to prove continuation of the 503(g) trust after its scheduled termination date under the parties’ marital settlement agreement, and whether the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the parties’ intent and deciding continuation without a hearing on the substantive burden.

Holding / outcome
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s order extending the 503(g) trust and remanded for further proceedings. The court held the trial court erred by excluding evidence of the parties’ intent and by resolving continuation without determining the proper burden and receiving evidence.

Significant legal reasoning
- The dissolution judgment incorporated detailed pretrial stipulations creating a 503(g) trust that expressly provided: (1) the trust would terminate March 1, 2017 unless the parties agreed in writing to continue it; (2) if no agreement, Carol could file a petition to continue and, if filed prior to a specified date, Carol would have the burden to show why the trust should be continued; and (3) while a petition was pending, the trust would continue until the court ruled.
- Carol filed a timely petition to continue, alleging Barry repeatedly failed to pay certain expenses and replenish the trust per the stipulations. The trial court extended the trust without hearing testimony or documentary evidence, reasoning it was merely “continuing a trust Barry had already agreed to.”
- The appellate court concluded the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the parties’ intent as to the allocation of burden under their contractual stipulation and incorrectly resolved the dispute without allowing proof on the issue the parties’ agreement had left to be determined. Because the stipulation functioned as the parties’ contract allocating responsibilities, evidence bearing on those contractual terms was material.

Practice implications
- When negotiating or drafting 503(g) trusts (and any post-dissolution funding mechanisms), be explicit about: who bears the burden of proof for extension/modification, the timing/deadlines for filing petitions, what constitutes continuation by agreement, notice/receipt/documentation requirements, replenishment mechanics, and sanctions for noncompliance.
- Preserve and admit extrinsic evidence of parties’ intent if contract language is ambiguous or allocates burdens — courts will permit such evidence and appellate courts will reverse where trial courts improperly exclude it.
- If seeking continuation or termination of a dissolution-created trust, present live testimony and documentary proof on both the statutory best-interest inquiry under 503(g) and any contractual burden allocated by the marital settlement agreement. Ensure the record supports findings on burden, compliance, and necessity.