In re Marriage of Stoker, 2021 IL App (5th) 200301-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Stoker, 2021 IL App (5th) 200301‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. July 15, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Daniel P. Stoker. Respondent‑Appellee: Erica L. Stoker. Appeal from St. Clair County (No. 18‑D‑324).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether two written post‑separation settlement agreements (Nov. 30, 2017 and Feb. 17, 2018) constituted valid, enforceable contracts (offer, acceptance, consideration) dividing marital property and setting maintenance/child support.
2. Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden of proof on contract invalidity to the husband.
3. Whether the agreements were void for duress/coercion, ambiguity, unconscionability, or failure to state essential terms.
4. Whether the trial court erred in denying modification of temporary maintenance/child support when husband voluntarily changed employment.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It upheld the trial court’s rulings that the written agreements were valid and enforceable and that the court properly denied the husband’s request to modify temporary maintenance and child support based on his voluntary employment change.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court accepted the trial court’s credibility findings: the parties negotiated terms over multiple meetings, the husband signed the November agreement and both signed/notarized the February vehicle agreement, and post‑agreement conduct (discussion, texts, participation in vehicle purchase) supported assent.
- The duress claim (wife’s alleged threat to report an extramarital affair to military superiors) was rejected as insufficiently corroborated and inconsistent with the record (texts and conduct). The husband’s later communications proposing alternate support amounts undercut his claim that he lacked free assent.
- The agreements contained sufficiently definite terms (specific maintenance amount/duration, child support formula, property allocations) to be enforced; they were not facially unconscionable or so ambiguous as to require non‑enforcement.
- On modification, the court applied the principle that a voluntary change in employment/income does not automatically justify downward modification of support.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- Document negotiations and parties’ assent (signed drafts, contemporaneous communications, notarization, and post‑signing performance) to defeat duress/avoid ambiguity claims.
- Draft settlement terms with specificity (amounts, duration, identification of property/debt) to ensure enforceability.
- Advise clients that voluntarily reducing income/employment to avoid support obligations is unlikely to succeed as a basis for modification; consider imputation of income.
- Preserve and develop the record on duress/coercion claims with contemporaneous evidence and witnesses; credibility determinations by trial courts are afforded deference on appeal.