In re Marriage of Sennebogen, 2025 IL App (3d) 240439-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Sennebogen, 2025 IL App (3d) 240439-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. May 12, 2025) (Rule 23 order; not precedent). Petitioner-Appellee: Yetta Sennebogen. Respondent-Appellant: Andrew Sennebogen.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce provisions of a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) incorporated into a final dissolution judgment more than 30 days after entry.
2) Whether the post-judgment order compelling payment impermissibly modified (engrafted new obligations on) the MSA/Judgment or was valid enforcement.
3) Proper interpretation of unambiguous MSA language awarding specific payments (100% of a 2021 tax refund, a $2,000 living-cost reimbursement, and prior $6,000 payment).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s June 6, 2024 order compelling Andrew to pay $14,500 (the unpaid $12,500 tax-refund half plus $2,000 reimbursement). The court held the trial court had jurisdiction to enforce the MSA incorporated into the final judgment and did not improperly modify it. The cause was remanded for further proceedings.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The MSA was incorporated into and adopted by the October 31, 2023 final Judgment, which expressly reserved the court’s jurisdiction to enforce its terms. Contract interpretation is reviewed de novo; the MSA language was plain and unambiguous: Yetta “shall receive 100% of the 2021 tax refund” and “is awarded reimbursement … $2,000.” Under established Illinois law, a trial court retains indefinite jurisdiction to enforce the terms of its marital-judgment/MSA (enforcement, including contempt, is distinct from modification). The controlling test is whether the post-judgment relief “engrafted” new obligations onto the judgment (Waggoner); here the court merely enforced clear, existing obligations. Appealability was proper under Supreme Court Rules (final order resolving remaining issues; Rule 304(a) finding noted).

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Always incorporate MSAs explicitly into the dissolution judgment and include a reservation of jurisdiction to enforce—this preserves the court’s long-term enforcement powers.
- Draft settlement language clearly and unambiguously when specifying discrete payments (refund splits, reimbursements, deadlines) to avoid collateral disputes.
- Enforcement actions (motion to compel, show-cause/contempt) are appropriate and can be pursued long after the 30-day appeal window for the judgment; they are generally treated as enforcement rather than prohibited post-decree modification.
- If a client seeks to attack an incorporated MSA after the appeal window, advise that relief is limited (must meet statutory standards to reopen property provisions under 750 ILCS 5/510(b)).
- Note: this is a Rule 23 (non-precedential) decision—useful guidance but limited citation value.