History
  • No items yet
midpage
In re Marriage of Arjmand
998 N.E.2d 686
Ill. App. Ct.
2013
Read the full case

Background

  • Parties married in 2001; no children of the marriage but husband (Masud) adopted respondent’s two children from a prior marriage. Divorce judgment entered July 22, 2009 incorporating a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and joint parenting agreement (JPA).
  • At prove-up Masud (with counsel) testified the MSA listed all assets, gave Muneeza more than 50% of marital assets, provided $2,000/month child support (stated to be ~28% of his net), and waived maintenance; Muneeza proceeded pro se and affirmed she understood and signed voluntarily.
  • Muneeza filed a section 2-1401 petition (Apr 2011) alleging MSA was procured by coercion and fraudulent concealment of assets; an 11-day evidentiary hearing followed.
  • Evidence showed Masud had significant stock (Accenture founder shares) sold during the marriage (proceeds ~$8.56M), extensive real estate investments and business entities, and varying representations of net worth and income in financial statements and tax returns (personal statements showing net worth ~$16–19M; tax returns and other records showing high income years and inconsistencies).
  • Trial court found Masud misrepresented or failed to disclose assets and income at the prove-up, the asset division was substantially unequal, child support did not meet statutory guidelines, and the MSA was unconscionable; it vacated the MSA but left the dissolution judgment intact and ordered updated discovery for equitable resolution.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument (Masud) Defendant's Argument (Muneeza) Held
Whether section 2-1401 relief was proper to vacate the MSA Petition should be denied; Muneeza failed due diligence and had affirmed agreement at prove-up MSA was unconscionable/procured by fraud/coercion and Masud concealed assets/income Trial court did not err — MSA vacated under 2-1401 due to unconscionability and nondisclosure
Whether MSA was substantively/procedurally unconscionable Classifications and division agreed by parties should bind court; no coercion Agreement is one-sided, lacked disclosure, child support deviated from guidelines without explanation Agreement found unconscionable (substantive and procedural factors) and vacated
Whether nonmarital funds were transmuted into marital property Proceeds from founder shares traced to purchase of investments; therefore nonmarital retained Accounts were joint, parties participated in enterprises, and tracing failed; presumption of marital property applies Court reasonably found transmutation/presumption of marital property not rebutted by clear and convincing evidence
Whether child support in MSA complied with statutory guidelines Child support valid; social security benefits for children offset support; proceeds need not be treated as income $2,000/month far below guideline amount given Masud’s income; social security does not fully offset obligation Court correctly found $2,000 did not meet statutory guidelines; determination to revisit child support remanded for recalculation

Key Cases Cited

  • In re Marriage of Johnson, 339 Ill. App. 3d 237 (Ill. App. Ct.) (2-1401 purpose and requirements)
  • Paul v. Gerald Adelman & Associates, Ltd., 223 Ill. 2d 85 (Ill. 2006) (section 2-1401 relief lies within trial court discretion)
  • People v. Vincent, 226 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 2007) (standards discussed in appellate review context)
  • Blisset v. Blisset, 123 Ill. 2d 161 (Ill. 1988) (agreements as to property/maintenance not binding if unconscionable)
  • In re Marriage of McGlothlin, 312 Ill. App. 3d 1145 (Ill. App. Ct.) (misrepresentation/concealment can warrant vacatur of settlement)
  • In re Marriage of Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d 1067 (Ill. App. Ct.) (unconscionability focuses on economic positions immediately after agreement)
  • In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill. App. 3d 640 (Ill. App. Ct.) (rules on transmutation and joint accounts)
  • In re Marriage of Henry, 156 Ill. 2d 541 (Ill. 1993) (when social security benefits may satisfy support obligations)
Read the full case

Case Details

Case Name: In re Marriage of Arjmand
Court Name: Appellate Court of Illinois
Date Published: Oct 28, 2013
Citation: 998 N.E.2d 686
Docket Number: 2-12-0639
Court Abbreviation: Ill. App. Ct.