In re Marriage of Streur, 2011 IL App (1st) 82326

Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Streur, 2011 IL App (1st) 082326 (1st Dist., 3rd Div., May 11, 2011; reh'g denied June 10, 2011; modified June 15, 2011).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Stacy Streur. Respondent-Appellee: John Streur, Jr.

Key legal issues
- Proper retroactive effective date for a post‑decree child‑support modification where the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) provided for “unallocated” maintenance/child support that terminated by its own terms.
- Timeliness and preclusion (res judicata/statute of limitations) of a 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401 petition to vacate portions of the dissolution judgment based on alleged pre‑judgment misrepresentations and post‑judgment nondisclosure.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded petitioner substantial attorney fees.

Holding / outcome
- Modified in part and affirmed in part. The appellate court modified the trial court’s retroactivity date for the increased child support from May 1, 2007 to April 1, 2005 (the day after the MSA’s unallocated support terminated), and affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the section 2‑1401 petition as untimely/otherwise barred. The award of petitioner’s attorney fees (approximately $127,000) was upheld.

Significant legal reasoning
- Retroactivity: The MSA expressly terminated unallocated support on March 1, 2005 and provided that, upon termination, the parties would “agree to an appropriate amount” of child support or, if they could not agree, the court would determine it. The appellate court concluded that retroactive modification should run from the day after the contractual support ended (April 1, 2005), not the later date the trial court selected. The court declined to make support retroactive to earlier filings that were voluntarily dismissed and not pursued to final adjudication.
- 2‑1401 petition: The court affirmed dismissal because petitioner’s attack on the original settlement was untimely under procedural limitations and was effectively barred by the prior dissolution judgment and related proceedings; alleged fraud and nondisclosure were not pleaded or established in a manner to overcome the time/claim‑preclusion rules.
- Attorney fees: The fee award was sustained — the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding fees reasonable and necessary to enforce the MSA and address respondent’s conduct, despite respondent’s arguments that fees arose from later litigation or petitioner’s over‑litigiousness.

Practice implications
- MSAs controls: Contract terms in an MSA (including fixed termination dates) strongly shape the scope and retroactivity of later support modifications. Parties should promptly pursue modifications once contractual support terminates.
- Voluntary dismissal risks: Voluntary dismissal of post‑decree petitions can forfeit entitlement to earlier retroactivity; strategic dismissals may preclude later relief.
- 2‑1401 limitations: Attacks on dissolution decrees via 2‑1401 face strict timeliness and pleading requirements — alleged pre‑judgment fraud must be timely and specifically pleaded.
- Fee shifting: Courts may award substantial attorney fees to enforce settlement terms and penalize nondisclosure or dilatory conduct. Ensure careful documentation of necessity and reasonableness of fees.