In re Marriage of Shulga, 2022 IL App (1st) 211018-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Shulga, No. 1-21-1018, 2022 IL App (1st) 211018‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Dec. 13, 2022) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Jodi Shulga; Respondent: Ronald Shulga (deceased); Third‑party Respondent‑Appellant: Mary Klebba.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the circuit court had subject‑matter jurisdiction to enforce the marital settlement agreement (MSA) and QILDRO and require Mary to turnover surviving‑spouse pension benefits.
2. Whether surviving‑spouse disability/retirement benefits were exempt from collection.
3. Whether Mary’s procedural due‑process and COVID‑19 executive‑order claims voided the judgments.
4. Whether the court properly denied Mary’s 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petitions to vacate (including claims that the judgments were void).
5. Validity of contempt and body‑attachment orders for Mary’s failure to comply.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the circuit court: Mary’s 2‑1401 petitions were dismissed/denied; the prior orders directing Mary to pay 50% of the pension benefits and imposing a constructive trust were upheld (as previously affirmed in Shulga I, 2019 IL App (1st) 182028); the contempt and body‑attachment orders were also affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning
- The court reiterated Shulga I: the payments Mary received were, in substance, retirement benefits rather than excluded disability benefits, and under the MSA/QILDRO Jodi was entitled to 50% (the constructive‑trust remedy to enforce the MSA was appropriate).
- Mary’s challenges to the circuit court’s power and to the characterization of benefits had been forfeited where not raised below; substantive review also supported the circuit court’s equitable authority to enforce its orders.
- Her 2‑1401 petitions failed because she could not show the underlying judgments were void (the proper basis for relief under 2‑1401 on voidness grounds). Claims premised on alleged procedural defects, executive orders, or exemptions from collection lacked merit.
- Procedural points: the appellant’s failure to include a report of proceedings or adequate record meant doubts were resolved against her (Foutch v. O’Bryant). The court also declined to consider documents not in the record and noted improper ex parte communications.

- Practice implications
- Preserve issues at trial/court below; appellate courts strictly enforce forfeiture rules.
- A QILDRO/MSA can reach surviving‑spouse/retirement benefits in substance; constructive trust and turnover remedies are viable to enforce family‑law monetary awards against pension proceeds.
- 2‑1401 relief is limited: to overturn final orders as void, provide clear grounds; mere disagreement or procedural complaints are unlikely to succeed.
- Assemble a complete record (transcripts, affidavits) and avoid ex parte communications; Rule 23 orders are non‑precedential, but the reasoning is instructive for enforcement strategy.