In Re Marriage of Goldsmith
962 N.E.2d 517
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Married 10 years; divorced in March 2003; dissolution judgment incorporated a marital settlement agreement with a limited discovery hedge that each party disclosed their property.
- About a year and a half after the judgment, Goldsmith filed a petition to enforce or vacate alleging concealment of assets totaling nearly $2 million.
- During dissolution, respondent’s counsel disclosed a net worth of $6,525,000; petitioner received $1.8 million in the dissolution judgment.
- Respondent provided an unsigned asset affidavit listing several assets; the “My assets” section included specific bank-related assets.
- Paragraph F of the MSA contains a full-disclosure representation/warranty and a 503-based mechanism for later-discovered property.
- Petitioner relied on the MSA’s disclosures during the prove-up; the trial court and appellate court concluded due diligence failed and the claims lacked merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether petitioner acted with due diligence to vacate under 2-1401. | Goldsmith relied on the MSA representation of full disclosure. | Goldsmith had opportunity for formal discovery and failed to pursue it. | No due diligence; petition lacked merit. |
| Whether petitioner could enforce or vacate based on newly discovered assets (Pinez, bank stock, tax refunds). | Pinez recovery, stock, and amended tax refunds were not disclosed and are marital assets. | Assets were either nonmarital, disclosed, or not subject to adjustment under the MSA/503. | No meritorious claims; 2-1401 petition denied. |
| Whether Pinez litigation proceeds are marital property under 503 | Pinez proceeds should be shared under 503. | Pinez was nonmarital, with no demonstrated commingling. | Not meritorious; Pinez proceeds not shared. |
| Whether nondisclosure of bank stocks entitled share under 503 or 511 | Bank stock not disclosed as stock; should be shared. | Assets disclosed in unsigned affidavit; no misrepresentation of value. | No meritorious claim; value disclosure sufficed. |
| Whether amended 1999 tax refunds post-dissolution entitle a share under MSA provisions | MSA 3.16 provisions imply a right to post-judgment refunds. | MSA lacks post-judgment sharing; 3.16(g) and 3.16(h) preclude. | No right to share; provision governs refunds and indemnification for post-judgment taxes. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Himmel, 285 Ill.App.3d 145 (1996) (due diligence and discovery principles in 2-1401 petitions)
- In re Marriage of Buck, 318 Ill.App.3d 489 (2000) (burden on movant in 2-1401; diligence required)
- Vincent, 226 Ill.2d 1 (2007) (standard for 2-1401 petitions and relief distinctions)
- Sweders v. Sweders, 296 Ill.App.3d 919 (1998) (contract-like provisions in MSAs and interpretation)
- Gallagher v. Lenart, 367 Ill.App.3d 293 (2006) (contract interpretation limits on modifying MSAs)
- Lagen v. Lagen, 14 Ill.App.3d 74 (1973) (reliance on representations and discovery opportunities)