In re Marriage of Benjamin
2017 IL App (1st) 161862
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Laurence and Arlene Benjamin divorced in 2001; maintenance obligations were incorporated in the judgment.
- In 2006 Arlene filed for indirect civil contempt, alleging Laurence failed to pay maintenance; the parties mediated and in 2009 entered an Agreed Judgment requiring Laurence to pay $500,000 (initial $350,000 paid; $150,000 due Dec. 1, 2013).
- Laurence did not pay the $150,000 on December 1, 2013 and filed a section 2-1401 petition (Dec. 3, 2013) seeking to vacate the Agreed Judgment, alleging Arlene had fraudulently concealed assets (a Chase bank account and loans from her son).
- The trial court held evidentiary hearings, denied the 2-1401 petition (June 1, 2016), later found Laurence in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay the $150,000 (Sept. 9, 2016), ordered payment with purge provision, awarded Arlene attorney fees, and denied Laurence’s motion for sanctions regarding an alleged false affidavit.
- Laurence paid the contempt amount and fees and appealed; the appellate court consolidated his appeals and affirmed the trial court in all respects.
Issues
| Issue | Laurence's Argument | Arlene's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Laurence’s 2-1401 petition based on fraudulent concealment of assets | Argued Arlene concealed a Chase account and other assets; he relied on those misrepresentations when entering the Agreed Judgment | Argued Laurence and his counsel had notice of the account (Chase subpoenas, mediation disclosures, loans disclosed) and failed to exercise due diligence | Affirmed: no fraudulent concealment; trial court’s credibility findings and conclusion that Laurence had or should have discovered the account were not against manifest weight of the evidence |
| Whether the trial court erred in finding Laurence in indirect civil contempt for nonpayment | Claimed he acted in good faith and should not be held in contempt | Argued he breached the Agreed Judgment and failed to pay the $150,000 | Not reviewed as moot: Laurence paid and the contempt order was purged, rendering the appellate challenge moot |
| Whether the attorney-fee award to Arlene was improper or excessive | Argued the award should be denied or reduced because Laurence prevailed on his claims or fees were unreasonable | Argued she substantially prevailed in defeating the 2-1401 petition and fees were reasonable given protracted litigation | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in awarding fees; Arlene substantially prevailed and fees were not shown to be unreasonable |
| Whether the court erred by denying Laurence’s motion to strike Arlene’s affidavit and impose sanctions for alleged false statements | Argued the affidavit contained false statements and warranted sanctions | Argued affidavit reflected a good-faith position (loan from son) and no prejudice resulted from it | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion; trial court found no intent to deceive and Laurence suffered no prejudice from affidavit (motion for summary judgment was denied) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Haynes, 192 Ill. 2d 437 (explaining purpose of section 2-1401 to call new facts to court’s attention)
- In re Marriage of Buck, 318 Ill. App. 3d 489 (discussing fraudulent concealment exception to 2-1401 limitations)
- In re Marriage of Himmel, 285 Ill. App. 3d 145 (settlement set-aside only where misrepresentation could not reasonably have been discovered)
- Turner v. Nama, 294 Ill. App. 3d 19 (fraudulent concealment defense fails where ordinary diligence would have discovered the conduct)
- Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1 (appellate standard: will not reverse trial court credibility/weight findings unless contrary to manifest weight of evidence)