In re Marriage of Zisook
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 3/26/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case Overview</h3>
<strong>Case Citation:</strong> 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U <br>
<strong>Date:</strong> March 26, 2025 <br>
<strong>Case Number:</strong> No. 1-22-1834
<h3>Parties</h3>
<strong...
Full Case Summary
Case Overview
Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-UDate: March 26, 2025
Case Number: No. 1-22-1834
Parties
Petitioner: Albert Zisook (Appellant/Cross-Appellee)Respondent: Nitza Zisook (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
Circuit Court: Cook County, Case No. 13 D 10585
Judge: Rosa Maria Silva
Judgment
Delivered by: Justice HowseConcurrence: Presiding Justice Van Tine and Justice Ellis
Outcome: The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.
Background
In 2013, Albert Zisook filed for divorce from Nitza Zisook, culminating in a divorce judgment and settlement agreement issued in 2015. The 2015 Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) included provisions for deferred compensation, requiring the petitioner to pay the respondent 50% of distributions received from his former employer, Citadel, LLC.Key Findings
Marital Settlement Agreement: The clause regarding the payment of 50% of future deferred compensation is clear and applies strictly to marital property.Legal Actions
Following the MSA, a Verified Petition for Indirect Civil Contempt was filed by the respondent in 2019 due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the divorce judgment concerning the deferred compensation payments received on disputed dates.Trial Court Decisions
On July 1, 2022, the court ruled that the petitioner must pay half of the February 2, 2018, deferred payment, totaling $82,339, while denying claims for 2019 payments as non-marital property. The trial court also granted the respondent attorney fees linked to the contempt proceedings, totaling $8,238.75.Appeals and Remaining Issues
Both parties filed appeals; Albert Zisook sought to dismiss the respondent’s cross-appeal, which was initially filed late but was later granted leave to file. On March 14, 2024, the court upheld the trial court’s decisions regarding the MSA interpretation and affirmed the judgment. The issue of attorney fees linked to enforcing the dissolution agreement was noted as potentially forfeited on appeal.Jurisdiction After Petitioner's Death
Following the petitioner's death in July 2023, the court determined its jurisdiction over the appeals remained valid as the rights under the MSA persisted through heirs and executors. A stay of proceedings was granted, but motions were later filed to lift the stay and address implications of the petitioner’s death on pending appeals.Final Summary
The court concluded that the respondent’s argument regarding the MSA strictly delineating shared future payments was sound but did not extend to payments received after the divorce. The trial court's ruling affirming the categorization of certain deferred compensation payments as marital property was upheld, while the respondent achieved partial success with the judgment of $22,167.50 for compliance with the MSA terms.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Zisook? Ask our AI assistant below.