In re Marriage of Wheelock, 2025 IL App (2d) 240571-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Wheelock, 2025 IL App (2d) 240571‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. June 12, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner/Appellee: Moira L. Wheelock. Respondent/Appellant: David P. Wheelock.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the dissolution judgment/agreement and prior QILDRO were “silent” as to how respondent’s defined‑benefit pension should be apportioned (i.e., whether the court could adopt the Hunt reserved‑jurisdiction formula).
- Whether res judicata barred post‑dissolution relief and correction/enforcement of the pension QILDRO.
- Whether the trial court properly ordered entry of an amended QILDRO using the Hunt formula (retroactive and prospective).

3. Holding/outcome
The Appellate Court affirmed. It held the dissolution judgment was silent as to the precise method for apportioning the marital portion of respondent’s Lake Zurich fire pension; res judicata did not bar relief because no final, definitive QILDRO allocating the marital portion had been previously entered; the trial court did not err in enforcing the judgment by ordering an amended QILDRO utilizing the Hunt formula.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Contract/settlement principles govern marital settlement agreements; courts interpret them to effectuate parties’ intent (Kehoe, Allen cited). Because defined‑benefit pensions depend on future contingencies (service, final salary, plan terms), courts use either present‑value awards or the Hunt reserved‑jurisdiction approach.
- A judgment is “silent” about pension allocation if it does not specify what portion of the pension is marital or include a completed QDRO/explicit calculation. Where silent, courts retain discretion to select an allocation method and may reserve jurisdiction to divide the pension when it becomes payable (citing Richardson, Hunt).
- Here the 1999 agreement awarded “50% of the balance as of April 26, 1999” but the 2001 QILDRO prepared by petitioner set a monthly amount and a lump‑sum refund figure without establishing the marital portion calculation; that did not foreclose correction/enforcement. The trial court properly ordered an amended QILDRO applying the Hunt formula; prior litigation did not produce a final allocation, so res judicata did not apply.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Draft dissolution judgments and settlement agreements to state precisely how pensions are to be divided (present‑value or formula), include calculations or attach a QDRO/QILDRO prepared by the agreed party.
- If reserving jurisdiction, expressly state the formula to be used (e.g., Hunt) or the method to avoid later disputes.
- Ensure the correct party prepares the QILDRO/QDRO and promptly finalize it at divorce to avoid later enforcement/interpretation litigation; where silence exists, expect courts to adopt Hunt/reserved‑jurisdiction remedies and permit correction to enforce the judgment.