In re Marriage of Stinauer, 2021 IL App (3d) 190692

1. Case citation and parties

In re Marriage of Stinauer, 2021 IL App (3d) 190692 (3d Dist. Feb. 16, 2021).
Petitioner-Appellee: Jesse J. Stinauer. Respondent-Appellant: Molly K. Stinauer. (Trial court: Fulton County, Judge Rasmussen.) Judgment: Reversed and remanded.

2. Key legal issues

- Whether a section 2-1401 petition to vacate a dissolution/support judgment, premised on alleged concealment of income, may rely on email correspondence that the opposing party claims is protected by the attorney‑client privilege.
- Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the 2-1401 petition without an evidentiary hearing to determine applicability of the attorney‑client privilege, waiver, or the crime‑fraud exception.

3. Holding/outcome

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. The court concluded the trial court should have held a hearing to determine whether an exception to the attorney‑client privilege applied before striking the petition.

4. Significant legal reasoning

- Section 2‑1401: petitions must plead facts (with diligence) that, if proven, would preclude the original judgment; such petitions are subject to ordinary civil procedure and may be dismissed only if facially insufficient.
- Attorney‑client privilege: protects confidential communications seeking legal advice, but is narrowly construed and subject to exceptions. Once privilege is asserted, the proponent of disclosure bears the burden to establish an exception.
- Crime‑fraud exception: applies when a client seeks attorney assistance to further a crime or fraud (focus on client intent). It does not bar disclosure if a prima facie evidentiary showing supports the exception. Mere allegation is insufficient; however, where the opposing party makes a sufficient showing, the trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing (citing DeHart, Decker, Radojcic).
- Here, Molly attached counsel‑to‑client email(s) to her 2‑1401 petition alleging concealment of income. The appellate court held that the attachment and allegations were enough to require an evidentiary hearing on privilege/exceptions rather than outright dismissal.

5. Practice implications

- Do not dismiss privilege disputes on pleadings alone: courts should conduct an evidentiary/in‑camera hearing before excluding challenged communications from 2‑1401 petitions.
- If asserting privilege, be prepared to seek in‑camera review and to present testimony/affidavits on confidentiality and lack of waiver.
- If opposing privilege, prepare a prima facie evidentiary showing (document attached to petition may suffice at threshold) to trigger a hearing under the crime‑fraud exception.
- Preserve and timely pursue 2‑1401 relief (two‑year limit) and document diligence in discovery and timing of the petition.
- Consider early tactical motions: in‑camera review, limited discovery (tax returns, business records), and careful handling of electronic evidence/possible waiver issues (device access).