In re Marriage of Zyskowski, 2022 IL App (2d) 210739-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Zyskowski, 2022 IL App (2d) 210739-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Oct. 18, 2022) (Rule 23(b) order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Matthew Zyskowski. Respondent-Appellant: Noelia Zyskowski (a/k/a Noelia Donamaria).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether respondent’s disposition (complete liquidation) of a jointly titled E*Trade securities account violated the marital settlement agreement (MSA) and supported an indirect civil contempt finding.
- Whether petitioner’s alleged refusal to cooperate in dividing his retirement accounts (Roth IRA and Barclay 401(k)) warranted holding him in indirect civil contempt where QDRO(s) were at issue and one QDRO was later entered.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding respondent in indirect civil contempt for entirely depleting the jointly held E*Trade account and ordering reimbursement of half ($3,670.45) with a jail sentence conditional on compliance (sentence stayed).
- The trial court did not err in declining to hold petitioner in contempt with respect to the retirement accounts: a QDRO for the Barclay 401(k) had been entered before the contempt hearing, making civil contempt (which must be purgable) inappropriate.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Clarity of MSA: Despite sloppy language (the MSA referenced division "pursuant to QDRO" for the ETrade account), the court treated the MSA as sufficiently clear that the ETrade asset was to be split 50/50 and respondent’s unilateral full withdrawal violated the judgment. The court rejected respondent’s claim that QDRO language made the provision ambiguous or unenforceable because a QDRO is not required for a brokerage account.
- Burden-shifting and necessity defense: Once petitioner showed withdrawal, burden shifted to respondent to show justification. The court found respondent’s necessity defense (paying joint Texas‑house expenses) insufficient because other means existed and she failed to prove exigency.
- Purgeability requirement for civil contempt: The court emphasized that civil contempt requires the contemnor have a present ability to purge. Because the Barclay QDRO had already been entered prior to the show‑cause hearing, petitioner could not purge, so contempt was inappropriate. The MSA also allocated responsibility for QDROs and allowed each party to retain counsel; that allocation influenced the court’s view of petitioner’s conduct.

5) Practice implications
- Draft MSAs precisely: avoid boilerplate (e.g., don’t direct QDROs for non‑QDRO assets); explicitly identify processes/timelines for dividing brokerage, IRA, and 401(k) accounts and who bears cost/filing duties.
- If seeking contempt, ensure the relief sought remains purgable at hearing; otherwise seek alternative remedies (turnover, accounting, temporary relief).
- Preserve and document requests for cooperation and any refusals; if a party must pay for a QDRO, expressly state who bears financial and procedural responsibility and the consequences of noncooperation.
- Move promptly to prepare/enter QDROs; delay can moot contempt remedies.