In re Prill
| Docket Number | 1-20-0516 |
| Decision Date | 03 September 2021 |
| Citation | 2021 IL App (1st) 200516,204 N.E.3d 850,461 Ill.Dec. 514 |
| Parties | IN RE MARRIAGE OF Jane S. PRILL, Petitioner-Appellant, and David R. Prill, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Amanda M. Oliver, Andrew B. Ference, and Bradley P. Erdman, of Weiss-Kunz & Oliver, LLC, of Chicago, for appellant.
Kurt A. Richter, of Palatine, for appellee.
¶ 1 This appeal involves the enforceability of a postnuptial agreement. Petitioner, Jane S. Prill, initiated dissolution of marriage proceedings against respondent, David. R. Prill. David filed a motion seeking to enforce the parties’ postnuptial agreement. After briefing and a hearing, the circuit court found that the postnuptial agreement was enforceable and found no just cause to delay enforcement or appeal. Jane appeals, arguing the postnuptial agreement is both substantively and procedurally unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. We affirm.
¶ 3 David and Jane were married in 1994, and their marriage produced four children, one of whom is a minor. David, a CPA, was the primary source of income for the family. Jane worked intermittently outside of the home. Those jobs were short-lived, and she was mostly a stay-at-home mother to the parties’ children. In June 2017, Jane informed David that she wanted a divorce. In September 2017, the parties executed a postnuptial agreement and a parenting agreement, which were drafted by David's counsel.
¶ 4 The postnuptial agreement set forth the following terms. Both parties waived maintenance. David agreed to pay, in lieu of maintenance, an "additional property settlement" of $4000 per month for 60 months. David would pay Jane $300,000 in exchange for a quitclaim deed to the marital residence. The parties owned five investment properties; David would keep four, and Jane would keep one. David would keep all the household furnishings in the marital home except for certain kitchen items, Jane's office furniture, and any items that David gifted Jane during the marriage. The parties would keep any funds in accounts held in their own name and would divide equally any funds held in joint accounts. David would keep the parties’ two joint investment accounts. Jane would remain as the owner and custodian of trust accounts for their children. Jane got five of the parties’ eight vehicles, and David got three. Each party would keep all retirement accounts titled in their own names. David would keep the stock options in his company, Bevolution Group. David waived any ownership interest in Jane's real estate business, Sunhah Properties, LLC, and the funds in Sunhah Properties’ business account were to be divided equally between the parties. Each party would keep all personal property and effects in their possession. Each party was responsible for their own attorney fees and for any of their individual debts. David would be responsible for paying for their children's health insurance and would be responsible for 70% of ordinary medical and dental care not covered by insurance. David was fully responsible for the children's college education costs. The agreement also outlined the parties’ respective parenting obligations, which are not at issue in this appeal.
¶ 5 There were no asset valuations attached to or incorporated into the postnuptial agreement, and no descriptions of any debts owed by the parties, and no mortgages, liens, or other encumbrances on any of the parties’ assets. An addendum to the agreement provided that David would transfer one of the rental properties to Jane for a fixed period, with Jane being responsible for all taxes and costs associated with the property, but her interest in the property would terminate if she entered a legal separation or dissolution of marriage before the end of the fixed term.
¶ 6 In November 2017, Jane filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. David answered the petition and filed a motion to enforce the postnuptial and parenting agreement.1 Jane's written response argued the postnuptial agreement was procedurally and substantively unconscionable, and therefore unenforceable. She argued that David attempted to dissuade her from obtaining her own attorney and threatened to kick her out of the house and cut her off from their children if she did not agree to his terms. She discussed the matter with an acquaintance, attorney Jeffrey Marks, with whom she had worked in her real estate business and who had some prior family law experience. Jane did not retain Marks and he did not represent her in any negotiations. She "reluctantly" signed the postnuptial and parenting agreements. She argued that she felt she had no choice but to sign due to David's threats, and the terms of the agreement unreasonably favored David.
¶ 7 The circuit court held a hearing on David's motion. There is no verbatim transcript of the hearing in the record, but the circuit court certified a bystander's report of the hearing. We will discuss the broad strokes of the hearing and fill in additional facts as needed in the analysis section below.
¶ 8 According to the bystander's report, David gave the following testimony. He did not want the marriage to end. Jane wanted a fresh start, he wanted to give her what she asked for, and her main goal was to be debt free. At some point prior to the execution of the postnuptial agreement, David agreed to give Jane $300,000 to buy a house. He gave somewhat confusing testimony as to the source of funds he used to pay Jane the property settlement and for the purchase of a house. He ultimately testified that, while he borrowed money from his parents after executing the postnuptial agreement, he paid Jane the property settlement from his investment accounts and from a mortgage loan he took out on the marital residence after executing the postnuptial agreement. He and Jane worked together to determine the value of their property and repeatedly met in her home office to discuss financial details. Jane told him in front of their children that she would not touch his retirement accounts. Jane consulted with two attorneys, one of whom submitted revisions, which he accepted. The purpose of the $240,000 property settlement in lieu of maintenance was designed to avoid any tax liabilities. He had stock options in his company, Bevolution Group, but they had no value. He previously told Jane that the stock options were worth approximately $2.3 million, but that was not true. He acknowledged that the liabilities he included in his own balance sheet were incurred after the postnuptial agreement.
¶ 9 Jane gave the following testimony. David was controlling, and she would do what David asked because he would be verbally and emotionally abusive if she did not. While she had various jobs outside of the home during the marriage, they did not last long because David wanted her to stay home and raise their children. David was employed as the chief financial officer for a company and largely handled the family's finances. She obtained her realtor's license during the marriage—at David's urging—to facilitate the parties’ investment property ventures. She wanted to negotiate with David and work together without acrimony or prolonged litigation. David bombarded her with charts and proposed allocations of the marital property on an almost daily basis for two months. The parties worked together to create balance sheets of their assets. David's attorney drafted the agreements. She consulted with two attorneys—Margaret Zuleger and Jeffrey Marks—during the parties’ negotiations, but David did not want her to hire an attorney, especially one who would change the parties’ agreement. Jane testified that Zuleger did not agree to represent her in the negotiations because David asked that Jane only allow Zuleger to rubber stamp the agreement drafted by David's attorney. Jane met with and called Marks numerous times, although she did not consider Marks her attorney. Jane told Marks that he could not make major changes to the agreement because David would not accept them. Both Jane and Marks testified that Marks told Jane not to sign the agreement. Marks was the one who suggested that the agreement be a postnuptial agreement. Jane testified she and Marks did make changes to the agreement, which David accepted. These included (i) changing the agreement from a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) to a postnuptial agreement, (ii) allowing the parties to jointly file their tax returns, (iii) permitting Jane to stay on David's health insurance plan, and (iv) allowing Jane to live rent free in one of the parties’ rental properties. Jane felt pressured into signing the agreement. David threatened to kick her out of the marital home and cut her off from their children if she did not sign the agreement. Marks encouraged Jane not to sign the agreement because the terms were unfair, but Marks testified that Jane felt she had to sign to prevent consequences, such as David preventing her from seeing her children. David called her parents during negotiations to pressure her into agreeing to his terms, and he repeatedly asked her to confirm in front of their children that she would not touch his retirement assets.
¶ 10 Both parties submitted demonstrative evidence of the marital estate's value at the time of the postnuptial agreement. Jane submitted a balance sheet, which David agreed was accurate, reflecting the value of the marital estate at approximately $3.8 million. Jane's demonstrative exhibit reflected she received 0.2% of the marital cash and investment accounts, 11% of the value of the parties’ real estate holdings, 7% of the value of the parties’ retirement accounts, and 27% of the value of the parties’ vehicles. The parties also had control of approximately $750,000 in accounts for their children, divided between trust accounts and educational savings accounts for each child. Jane was allocated...
To continue reading
Request your trial