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

1) Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Stoker, 2021 IL App (5th) 200301. Petitioner‑Appellant: Daniel P. Stoker. Respondent‑Appellee: Erica L. Stoker. Appeal from St. Clair County (Judge Stacy L. Campbell). Judgment affirmed.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether two post‑separation written agreements (a Nov. 30, 2017 “divorce agreement” and a Feb. 17, 2018 vehicle agreement) were valid and enforceable marital settlement agreements (MSAs).
- Whether the trial court improperly shifted the burden to Daniel to prove the agreements invalid (lack of offer/acceptance/consideration).
- Whether Daniel met the burden to avoid enforcement based on duress/coercion, ambiguity, parol evidence, or unconscionability.
- Whether Daniel’s voluntary employment change justified modification of temporary maintenance/child support.

3) Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err: the written agreements were enforceable, Daniel failed to prove duress or other grounds invalidating them, and his request to modify temporary support based on a voluntary employment change was denied.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Burden: The court correctly required the party seeking to avoid a contract (Daniel) to prove invalidity (e.g., duress, unconscionability). That allocation is consistent with contract law: contracts are presumptively valid and enforceable absent proof of infirmity.
- Formation and enforcement: The totality of objective evidence—meetings, handwritten and typed drafts, text messages, subsequent behavior, and a notarized vehicle agreement—supported mutual assent and sufficiently definite terms. Parol‑evidence principles do not allow rewriting an otherwise enforceable agreement; the agreements’ essential terms were ascertainable.
- Duress/coercion: Daniel’s testimony alleging threats (reporting adultery to military commanders) was not credited in light of contemporaneous conduct and communications (texts, negotiating, further dealings) and lack of immediate protest. The court found his evidence insufficient to show lack of free will.
- Modification of temporary support: Daniel’s income reduction was voluntary (leave from Delta); courts generally deny relief where a change is self‑inflicted.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Ensure MSAs are signed by both parties, preferably witnessed/notarized, and contain clear, specific terms to minimize disputes about formation and certainty.
- If a client alleges duress or coercion, develop contemporaneous corroboration (communications showing protest, timing, threats, witnesses) — post‑hoc assertions alone are weak.
- Preserve and introduce objective evidence (drafts, texts, conduct after signing) to support or rebut assent.
- Advise clients that voluntary employment changes to avoid support obligations risk denial of modification; litigants should not self‑inflict income reductions.
- When drafting settlement documents, consider separate express clauses about child support and parental responsibilities (remember §502(b) — some child‑related provisions remain subject to court review).