In re Marriage of Ulanov, 2020 IL App (1st) 182501-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Ulanov, No. 1-18-2501, 2020 IL App (1st) 182501-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 7, 2020) — Petitioner/Appellee-Cross‑Appellant: Mark T. Ulanov; Respondent/Appellant-Cross‑Appellee: Irene Ulanov.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether petitioner’s contractual obligation to maintain a $250,000 life‑insurance policy under the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) was excused by impossibility (health/age/insurability).
2. Whether the trial court could enforce the life‑insurance obligation by ordering an alternative (self‑insurance) in post‑dissolution contempt proceedings.
3. Entitlement to attorney fees: whether fees should be awarded under Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act §508 and under Supreme Court Rule 137.
4. Pleading and appellate procedure issues (timeliness of affirmative defenses; compliance with Rule 342).

- Holding/outcome (concise)
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It upheld the trial court’s rejection of impossibility and its order requiring Mark to secure the $250,000 obligation by setting aside funds (self‑insurance/joint account). It affirmed denial of Rule 137 fees. It reversed the denial of Irene’s fee petition under §508 because the trial court applied the wrong standard and remanded for further proceedings on fees. The contempt finding (none) was not appealed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court treated the MSA life‑insurance clause as a continuing, enforceable obligation whose purpose was to ensure payment to Irene in the event Mark predeceased her. The term policy’s expiration did not, by itself, discharge the covenant.
- Impossibility requires proof that all practical methods of performance are impossible; evidence that a replacement policy was unavailable because of age/health did not conclusively satisfy that standard. The trial court reasonably fashioned an alternative means (Plan B): requiring Mark to set aside $250,000 in an account with survivorship rights to secure the same economic purpose.
- On fees, the appellate court found the trial court misapplied the controlling standard under §508 and therefore remanded for proper consideration (with an evidentiary opportunity if warranted). Denial under Rule 137 was not an abuse of discretion.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs to include fallback security measures (trust, escrow, survivorship account, liquid reserve) and set clear default remedies and proof procedures for life‑insurance requirements.
- Address contingencies: specify whether obligation terminates at policy expiry, who bears burden to seek replacement, and what constitutes impossibility.
- Preserve affirmative defenses and plead them timely; litigate and develop evidence on impossibility if raised.
- When seeking fees under §508, be prepared to present full evidence and legal analysis; Rule 137 relief is harder to obtain.
- Appellate counsel must comply with Rule 342 appendix requirements.