In re Marriage of Turano Solano, 2019 IL App (2d) 180011

In re Marriage of Turano Solano, 2019 IL App (2d) 180011

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Turano Solano, 2019 IL App (2d) 180011. Petitioner–Appellee: Lisa M. Turano Solano. Respondent–Appellant: Scott M. Solano. Appeal from Du Page County (affirmed).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a premarital agreement was enforceable under the Illinois Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (750 ILCS 10/7) given:
- Alleged lack of voluntariness and inadequate disclosure of assets;
- Whether the written waiver of further disclosure bars a challenge under §7(a)(2);
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a continuance for additional discovery and whether the hearing was procedurally unfair.

3) Holding/outcome
- The Second District affirmed. The premarital agreement was enforceable. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying respondent’s continuance motion and did not conduct an unfair hearing.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory framework: Section 7(a) makes a premarital agreement unenforceable only if the challenger proves lack of voluntariness or that the agreement was unconscionable and the challenger also meets three disclosure-related prerequisites (no fair disclosure, no written waiver of disclosure, and no adequate knowledge).
- Written waiver controlling: The agreement expressly stated the attached exhibits were “adequate disclosures” and that the parties “expressly waive[d] any right to disclosure … beyond the disclosure provided.” The court emphasized that such a written waiver defeats a §7(a)(2) challenge regardless of the substantive adequacy of the disclosed information.
- Burden and evidence: Respondent’s post‑execution affidavit and testimony asserting a mutual understanding that “None” meant mutual sharing did not overcome the agreement’s explicit written terms and waiver. The appellate court found respondent failed to prove lack of voluntariness or the statutory elements required to render the contract unenforceable as unconscionable.
- Denial of continuance: The trial court did not abuse its discretion; respondent’s continuance request was untimely, speculative, and sought broad “fishing” discovery rather than showing diligence or materiality that would justify delay. The hearing provided adequate procedural protections.

5) Practice implications
- Drafting: Use explicit waiver and disclosure language if the parties intend to bar later challenges under §7(a)(2). Attach clear, specific schedules/exhibits (avoid ambiguous entries like “None” where assets exist).
- Execution: Have clients acknowledge independent counsel and voluntariness in writing; contemporaneous documentation reduces later credibility attacks.
- Litigation strategy: Challengers face a high bar—if a written waiver of disclosure exists, attacks must focus on proving lack of voluntariness or unconscionability independent of disclosure; affidavits contradicting clear written terms are unlikely to prevail.
- Procedure: Preserve discovery requests early and be specific about needed information; courts may deny continuances for speculative or untimely discovery requests.