In re Marriage of Roy, 2019 IL App (5th) 170087-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Roy, No. 5‑17‑0087, 2019 IL App (5th) 170087‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 28, 2019). Petitioner‑Appellant: Elizabeth Roy (now Elizabeth Scott). Respondent‑Appellee: Patrick D. Roy. (Consolidated factual record with Bollmeier v. Roy regarding alleged loans by Elizabeth’s parents.)

- Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in allocating parental responsibility for extracurricular activities to the father.
- Whether the trial court properly found the mother in civil contempt for failing to turn over personal property awarded to the father.
- Enforceability and effect of portions of an oral marital settlement read into the record.
- Whether the trial court properly allocated marital debt arising from two alleged loans and an earlier confessed judgment.

- Holding / outcome (summary)
The appellate court affirmed: (1) the award of parental responsibility for extracurricular activities to Patrick was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence; (2) the contempt finding against Elizabeth was supported by the trial court’s credibility determinations; (3) portions of the parties’ oral settlement that were definite, certain, undisputed and incorporated into the written judgment were valid and could be relied on; and (4) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in assigning the alleged loan debt and resulting judgment to Elizabeth. The contempt determination was affirmed but the case was remanded for an additional order specifying the purge sanction Elizabeth must meet to vacate the contempt.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Appellate deference: the court emphasized deference to the trial judge on credibility and factual findings (manifest‑weight standard) in both custody/allocation of extracurricular responsibility and contempt determinations.
- Settlement enforcement: the court enforced those oral settlement terms that were definite, certain, testified to by both parties, and incorporated into the court’s written judgment, distinguishing enforceable oral terms from any ambiguous or disputed statements.
- Debt allocation: the court concluded the trial court’s allocation of the Bollmeier loans and the confessed judgment to Elizabeth was supported by the record and not a product of the oral settlement; consideration of the parties’ conduct and documentary evidence justified the assignment.
- Contempt procedural defect: because the contempt order did not state what action would purge the contempt, remand was required for the trial court to enter a cure‑or‑purge specification.

- Practice implications
- When seeking or opposing contempt, ensure the trial court expressly states the purge condition/sanction in the contempt order.
- Preserve and reduce settlement terms to a clear written agreement or have the court incorporate specific oral terms into the judgment on the record to avoid later disputes.
- In custody disputes over extracurriculars, present clear evidence on communication, decisionmaking, cost and impact on visitation — credibility findings are likely to be upheld.
- Where third‑party loans or confessed judgments intersect with property division, document intent and payments carefully; recorded judgments can control refinancing and equity distribution consequences.