In re Marriage of Sweet, 2020 IL App (5th) 190387-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Sweet, No. 5-19-0387, 2020 IL App (5th) 190387-U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., filed Nov. 10, 2020) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Thersia K. Sweet. Respondent-Appellee: Stephen K. Sweet.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a section 2‑1401 petition (735 ILCS 5/2‑1401) seeking relief from a prior marital dissolution judgment based on alleged fraud/dissipation (accentuated by the husband’s subsequent federal tax guilty plea) states a basis for relief.
- Whether the petition was barred by res judicata, untimely, or otherwise legally insufficient (including failure to plead meritorious claim and due diligence).
- Proper procedural vehicle/standard for dismissal (combined 2‑615/2‑619 motion under 2‑619.1).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court’s dismissal of the wife’s 2‑1401 petition was affirmed. The appellate court concluded the petition was barred under res judicata and that the appellant failed to show entitlement to 2‑1401 relief.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Section 2‑1401 is not a vehicle to relitigate matters that were or could have been decided in the original action; it requires (a) a meritorious claim or defense, (b) due diligence in presenting that claim in the original proceeding, and (c) due diligence in filing the petition.
- The husband’s motion to dismiss was properly treated as a combined motion under 735 ILCS 5/2‑619.1 because it raised both facial insufficiency and affirmative defenses (res judicata, timeliness, release/waiver). Standard of review is de novo.
- Res judicata barred the petition because there was a final judgment on the merits (dissolution and property division), and the issues the wife raised (including alleged asset concealment/dissipation) either were litigated or could have been raised earlier. The existence of the prenuptial agreement and prior appellate affirmance of property rulings further undermined the claim.
- The court emphasized that a criminal conviction or plea (tax evasion) does not automatically entitle a former spouse to vacatur under 2‑1401 absent proof that the information was unavailable with due diligence and that it would have prevented entry of the original judgment.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Do not assume post‑dissolution criminal convictions will automatically reopen property/maintenance judgments — 2‑1401 relief requires showing meritorious claim and strict due diligence.
- Preserve fraud/dissipation claims during dissolution with timely discovery and motion practice; issues that could have been raised in the original case are likely barred by res judicata.
- When defending a 2‑1401 petition, consider a combined 2‑615/2‑619.1 motion asserting res judicata, timeliness, and pleading defects.
- Treat Rule 23 orders as nonprecedential but persuasive; carefully document discovery efforts and the timing of any newly discovered evidence.