In re Marriage of Slater, 2019 IL App (1st) 181947-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Slater, 2019 IL App (1st) 181947-U (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Nov. 18, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellant: John Slater. Respondent-Appellee: Kathleen Slater.

2. Key legal issues
- Which date controls the premarital agreement’s marital/non‑marital classification (whether the end date is Kathleen’s earlier petition or John’s later petition that resulted in dissolution)?
- Whether the trial court correctly allocated multiple bank/investment accounts as marital or non‑marital and ordered reimbursement for marital funds commingled into non‑marital accounts per the prenup.
- Proper division of a joint income tax refund given pretrial communications/evidence of agreement to split.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. Appellant forfeited his challenge to the prenup’s determinative end date by failing to timely appeal the trial court’s declaratory judgment after Rule 304(a) language was added. The trial court’s rulings allocating accounts, ordering reimbursement of marital funds, and dividing the tax refund equally were upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Preservation/forfeiture: The court stressed procedural finality — John failed to appeal the November 22, 2017 declaratory judgment (which included language tying the end date to John’s filing “if the filing results in a dissolution”) after obtaining Rule 304(a) language; hence he forfeited the issue on appeal.
- Contract and fact findings: The premarital agreement was stipulated valid and its text governed classification: accounts opened pre‑marriage remained non‑marital unless transmuted in writing; income “received … during the marriage and before either party files for divorce” was treated as marital; reimbursement provisions applied where marital funds were used to benefit non‑marital assets without required written consent.
- Tracing and intent evidence: The court accepted trial testimony, stipulations, and email exchanges tracing $250,000 transferred from a salary account into a pre‑existing Fidelity account and other deposits, applying contractual reimbursement rules. Emails/testimony showed mutual agreement to equally split the 2016 tax refund, and the court enforced that agreement.

5. Practice implications
- Preservation matters: Immediately appeal or timely move to reconsider if a litigant wants to contest a declaratory ruling — obtaining or failing to obtain Rule 304(a) language can determine appealability and forfeiture.
- Prenuptial drafting: Draft clear temporal triggers for marital/non‑marital classifications (specify whether “filed for divorce” requires a filing that results in dissolution), include explicit transmutation procedures, and address treatment of tax refunds/joint filings.
- Fact workup: Meticulous tracing of deposits/transfers and documentary proof (bank records, emails) are critical where reimbursement or commingling claims arise.
- Stipulations matter: Pretrial stipulations (validity of prenup, ownership of accounts) substantially constrain appellate arguments.