In re Marriage of Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198 (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Mar. 2, 2012).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Chad T. Roepenack. Respondent-Appellee: Kathleen L. Roepenack.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a marital settlement agreement (and the dissolution judgment incorporating it) was procured by fraud or was unconscionable so as to warrant relief under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401.
- Admissibility and proper use of a business appraisal (challenged as hearsay) in a 2‑1401 hearing.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of Kathleen’s 2‑1401 petition. The court vacated provisions of the marital settlement agreement (except the joint‑custody provision) and remanded for further proceedings. The appraisal was properly admitted for limited purposes.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court found that the totality of circumstances supported relief: Kathleen negotiated and signed the agreement while unrepresented and absent at the prove‑up; Chad materially misrepresented his 2008 income during settlement negotiations (represented as $100,000 but later shown on the late‑filed 2008 tax return to be ~ $211,000); Chad failed to disclose a contemporaneous appraisal valuing several franchise businesses at over $1 million; Kathleen had earlier handled business accounting and had cosigned substantial business loans but was unaware of the appraisal or true value at the time of settlement; and the settlement left Chad with the bulk of assets while Kathleen received relatively little.
- The court emphasized that an unauthorized child‑support deviation and failure to present complete financial information to the court made approval unlikely had the court known the true facts.
- The appraisal was admissible for “state of mind” and to show whether fraud/deception occurred (a limited exception to hearsay in the context of the 2‑1401 equitable inquiry).

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Full, timely disclosure of income, tax returns, business valuations, appraisals, and loan documents is critical before signing/approving settlements. Late filing of tax returns after a prove‑up is a red flag.
- Never proceed to a prove‑up when a party is unrepresented or lacks meaningful disclosure; obtain written confirmations the client understands terms and wavier of counsel is knowing and voluntary.
- Explicitly present and obtain court approval for any child‑support deviations and document the factual basis for deviations.
- Preserve and introduce documentary proof of valuations and income; opposing counsel may successfully pursue 2‑1401 relief where material facts were concealed or misrepresented.