IRMO Druss, 226 Ill. App. 3d 470
Mar 06, 1992OUTCOME: This case stands for the proposition that if there is "clear & unambiguous" language in a marital settlement agreement, then a trial court shall not be permitted to rely on extrinsic evidence to ascertain what it believes to be a more logical result.
Elizabeth & Lenard were married in 1967, had one child, Lissa, born in 1969, and were divorced in 1977. Lenard remarried Dolores in 1983. Lenard passed away in 1990. The divorce decree in 1977 conta ... ined language stating that if Elizabeth remarried before Lenard's death, then Lissa would be entitled to the $100,000 life insurance policy, and in addition thereto, Lissa would be entitled to receive 50% of Lenard's pension. Elizabeth never remarried. Elizabeth alleged, and the trial court found, that even though Lissa was not entitled to the $100,000 life insurance proceeds since Elizabeth never remarried, Lissa was still nevertheless stilll entitled to 50% of Lenard's pension. Dolores appealed the trial court decision to award Lissa 50% of Lenard's pension because Elizabeth never remarried, and Dolores contended that the "clear & unambiguous" language of the marital settlement agreement stated that Lissa was only entitled to 50% of Lenard's pension, if Elizabeth remarried. This provision was illogical to the trial court judge, so the judge allowed for introduction of extrinsic evidence to ascertain the true meaning of the terms of the marital settlement agreement. After a post-decree hearing, in which the trial judge was able to read the transcript of court proceedings, the trial judge determined that it was the intention of the parties to provide that Lissa was to receive 50% of Lenard's pension, regardless of whether or not Elizabeth remarried. Dolores argued on appeal, that the "clear & unambiguous" language in the marital settlement agreement required Elizabeth to have remarried before Lissa was entitled to 50% of Lenard's pension.
