In re Marriage of Zisook, 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Zisook, No. 1-22-1834, 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U (1st Dist. Mar. 26, 2025) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner/Appellant: Albert Zisook. Respondent/Appellee: Nitza Zisook. Appeal from Cook County circuit court dissolution judgment incorporating a marital settlement agreement (MSA).

2. Key legal issues
- Does the MSA provision requiring petitioner to remit “one‑half (1/2) of all … future deferred compensation distributions [petitioner] receives as a result of his employment at Citadel, LLC” obligate him to pay 50% of all deferred compensation regardless of whether the amounts are marital property, or is it limited to the marital portion of deferred compensation?

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the MSA provision is unambiguous and, read in context, is limited to deferred compensation that constitutes marital property. The trial court’s disposition (finding respondent entitled to half of a portion of a February 2, 2018 CEIF payment but not to 2019 payments earned after the divorce) was affirmed. The trial court had ordered petitioner to pay an additional $22,167.50 to complete compliance; respondent’s motion to reconsider was denied.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Contract interpretation principles: the court construed the MSA as a whole and treated Article III (deferred compensation) as a property division provision distinct from maintenance (Article II). Because Article III expressly listed specific pre‑dissolution distributions and reserved “future” distributions, the court found the parties intended to divide the marital interest in deferred compensation—not to convert all future employer payments (including amounts earned post‑divorce) into marital property.
- Factual tracing: trial evidence about the Citadel CEIF plan (grant/vesting mechanics and service years), testimony from counsel about intent, and accounting of which payments derived from pre‑divorce service informed the finding that some payments were marital (traceable to pre‑divorce service) while others were nonmarital (earned after dissolution). The court permitted extrinsic evidence to identify which distributions were marital.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Drafting: expressly define “deferred compensation,” specify whether future accruals or post‑dissolution vesting are treated as marital, and tie entitlements to service years/grant dates or a clear formula. Address employer plan mechanics, vesting, termination consequences, and timing of payments. Include audit/production rights, notice and payment timing, tax allocation, and enforcement remedies (escrow, setoffs).
- Litigation/enforcement: obtain employer plan documentation and transactional tracing (grant, vesting, payment dates) early; use parol/extrinsic evidence to show parties’ intent only to the extent the agreement is ambiguous; if MSA lists specific post‑marriage payouts, be prepared to prove which distributions derive from pre‑divorce service.
- Procedural note: opinion is Rule 23 (non‑precedential) but persuasive on MSA construction and tracing deferred‑comp payments.