2025 IL App (1st) 240562-U Order filed: August 21, 2025
FIRST DISTRICT FOURTH DIVISION
Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). ______________________________________________________________________________
IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT ______________________________________________________________________________
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of RHET MITCHELL, ) Cook County ) Petitioner-Appellee, ) v. ) No. 2020 D 7035 ) BURNETTA HERRON, ) Honorable ) Lloyd James Brooks, Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, presiding. _________________________________________________________________________
PRESIDING JUSTICE ROCHFORD delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Lyle and Ocasio concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: In this dissolution of marriage case, we vacated the in limine order limiting the evidence respondent could present in support of her claim for reimbursement of the household and family living expenses she had paid during the marriage. We remanded for further proceedings.
¶2 This is a dissolution of marriage case. The court conducted a bench trial and divided the
marital property between the petitioner, Rhet Mitchell, and the respondent, Burnetta Herron. On
appeal, respondent argues that the court erred when it granted a motion in limine limiting the
evidence she could present in support of her claim for reimbursement for the household and family
living expenses she had paid during the marriage. Respondent also argues that the court erred in
its allocation of the mortgage on the marital residence. We vacate the in limine order and the Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
portion of the judgment adjudicating respondent’s reimbursement claims and remand for further
proceedings. We affirm the portion of the judgment allocating the mortgage.
¶3 The parties were married on May 8, 2010, and had two children during their marriage. Four
days prior to their wedding, on May 4, 2010, the parties entered into a prenuptial agreement (PNA)
which had been prepared by respondent. In pertinent part, paragraph 2E of the PNA stated:
“Regardless of which party owns a residence in which the parties are living during
the marriage, both parties shall make equal (unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the
parties) financial contributions to the parties’ ongoing household and family living
expenses. In the event that the parties do not otherwise agree in writing and either party
has not complied with this provision, at the time of the entry of a Judgment for Dissolution
of Marriage or Legal Separation, the other party has the right to receive reimbursement for
his or her portion of the funds as set forth in this Agreement as if the other party had fully
complied with his obligations under this paragraph.”
¶4 On October 2, 2020, petitioner filed for dissolution of the marriage. Respondent filed a
counter-petition and a motion for a declaratory judgment that the PNA is valid and binding. The
declaratory judgment motion was withdrawn when the parties entered into an agreed order stating
the PNA was valid, enforceable, and binding on the parties. On December 27, 2022, the court
entered an agreed order bifurcating the proceedings and dissolving the marriage instanter, while
reserving all remaining financial matters for the completion of trial.
¶5 Respondent retained an expert forensic accountant, Amber Rychetsky, who reviewed the
parties’ checking and savings accounts, credit card accounts, and expenditures during the marriage
and prepared a report listing thousands of financial transactions involving the parties between May
2010 through December 31, 2021, formatted into a spreadsheet. Rychetsky listed each transaction
-2- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
as personal or marital and sorted the marital expenditures into eight separate categories: insurance,
mortgage, homeowners association (HOA) fees, groceries, utilities, car payments, childcare, and
extracurricular activities for the children. Using those eight categories, Rychetsky calculated the
total marital expenses from May 2010 through August 2019, to be $1,712,299 and that petitioner’s
50% share of those expenses was $856,149. Petitioner had contributed only $335,274 towards
those expenses, leaving a shortfall of $520,875 which was required to be reimbursed to respondent.
¶6 Rychetsky also listed four additional categories of expenses that “could be” considered
marital expenses covered under the PNA: those expenditures were for storage, housekeeping,
dining out, and gasoline. Rychetsky calculated the total marital expenses from May 2010 through
August 2019 including those four additional categories to be $1,904,936 and that petitioner’s 50%
share of those expenses under the PNA was $952,468. Petitioner had contributed only $369,435
towards those expenses, leaving a shortfall of $583,033 which was required to be reimbursed to
respondent.
¶7 Petitioner filed a two-count motion in limine to bar Rychetsky’s report, arguing in count I
that the issue of reimbursement was not justiciable because respondent failed to raise the issue in
her counter-petition for dissolution of marriage or any subsequent pleading. Count II alleged that
Rychetsky’s report was speculative and unreliable as it failed to provide adequate support for its
finding that petitioner owed respondent over $500,000 as reimbursement for household and family
living expenses. Specifically, petitioner contended that Rychetsky reviewed only “a portion” of
his checking and credit card account statements and that many of those statements were in control
of the respective financial institutions and outside of his possession and had never been produced
to Rychetsky. Rychetsky also failed to ever interview petitioner and instead relied only on
respondent’s “self-serving statements” regarding the amount of money owed to her. Further,
-3- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
Rychetsky failed to obtain receipts and invoices for the “vast majority” of the expenditures
included in her report and she made a number of “unreasonable” assumptions casting “serious
doubt” on the report’s reliability. For example, Rychetsky assumed that any Amazon purchase by
respondent was a household or family living expense required to be reimbursed by petitioner,
without considering that at least some of those purchases could have been personal to respondent
and not reimbursable.
¶8 On July 7, 2022, the circuit court held a hearing on the in limine motion. Respondent has
not provided us with a transcript of the hearing or an acceptable substitute, such as a bystander’s
report or agreed statement of facts, under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 323 (eff. July 1, 2017).
Following the hearing, the court entered an order denying count I of the motion in limine, finding
that the issue of reimbursement was justiciable. The court continued its ruling on count II until the
first day of trial; however, the order also stated that “Respondent is hereby barred from presenting
any evidence for any reimbursement claims, pursuant to paragraph 2.E. of the parties’ Prenuptial
agreement, for any expenses that predated January 1, 2015.”
¶9 The cause proceeded to a bench trial. Before hearing any evidence, the court heard
arguments on count II of respondent’s motion in limine, which alleged that Rychetsky’s report
finding that petitioner owed respondent in excess of $500,000 for reimbursement of household and
family living expenses should be inadmissible in its entirety because it was speculative and
unreliable.
¶ 10 The court denied count II of the in limine motion, ruling that “[t]he potential limitations of
the report affect the persuasiveness of the report ***. However, the limitations of the report are
not so pervasive as to rise to the level of making the entire report speculative.” The court stated
that it would consider Rychetsky’s report with regard to respondent’s claims that petitioner should
-4- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
reimburse her for household and family living expenses she paid on or after January 1, 2015. The
court reiterated that it would not consider Rychetsky’s report in support of any claim that petitioner
should reimburse respondent for household and family living expenses she paid prior to January
1, 2015.
¶ 11 At trial, respondent testified that she is a surgeon who worked at Advocate Trinity Hospital
from 2005 until August 1, 2022, when she began working at Mt. Sinai Chicago Hospital. While
working at Advocate, respondent earned around $220,000 per year. At Mt. Sinai, she earns
$450,000 yearly. Respondent met petitioner in 2005 and they were engaged in 2009. They agreed
to a PNA pursuant to which each party was responsible for half of the household and family living
expenses during the marriage, and that if one party did not contribute his/her equal share, the other
party could seek reimbursement at the time of dissolution.
¶ 12 Respondent testified that they married on May 8, 2010, at which time they resided in a
condominium at 125 E. 13th Street. Petitioner traveled on business and was home for the
weekends. The expenses associated with living in the condominium included the mortgage, HOA
fees, car payment, insurance, storage, groceries, gas, electric, and cable. After the children were
born, there were additional expenses for their various extracurricular activities, including music
school, dance classes, gymnastics, summer camp and after school care. Respondent paid the
mortgage, HOA fees, condominium insurance and car payments out of her own banking accounts.
¶ 13 Every weekend after petitioner came home from his work-related travel, they discussed the
various bills, including for the mortgage, HOA, utilities, cable, and childcare, and they argued
about his contribution to the payment of all the expenses. Respondent would ask petitioner when
he intended to pay his fair share. Petitioner always responded that he would pay when he gets his
next bonus.
-5- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
¶ 14 Respondent testified that the parties bought a new home on August 22, 2019. Nine days
later, on August 31, 2019, they separated. Respondent stated that she would like to refinance the
house in her name only and buy out petitioner’s interest.
¶ 15 Respondent testified she paid her mother, Paula Herron, $2,000 per month for childcare.
The monies were deposited into a joint checking account held by her and Paula, which respondent
sometimes withdrew and deposited into her own personal checking account.
¶ 16 Paula testified that she sometimes assisted in caring for the parties’ minor children. There
was no regular schedule; instead, she cared for them as needed by respondent. Paula never asked
for payment but respondent made regular deposits of monies into a joint checking account that
they shared. Paula used monies from her own individual accounts to pay her own bills; she could
not recall the last time she withdrew any monies from the joint account that she shared with
¶ 17 Rychetsky testified consistently with her report that petitioner owed respondent over
$500,000 as reimbursement for marital expenses which respondent had paid during their marriage.
¶ 18 Petitioner testified that he works for Infosys Consulting. His income varies from year to
year but averages about $245,000 per year. Prior to marrying respondent, they signed a PNA.
Petitioner testified that none of the 12 categories of marital expenditures set forth in Rychetsky’s
report are specified in the PNA and that not all of them were agreed to by the parties as constituting
reimbursable household and family living expenses. Consistent with his pretrial motion in limine,
petitioner testified that Rychetsky’s report was suspect because she never interviewed him and she
did not consider all of his checking and credit card statements and did not accurately reflect all the
payments made by him for the family’s expenses. Rychetsky also made a number of improper
assumptions in her report; for example, she incorrectly assumed that all expenses petitioner
-6- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
incurred outside Illinois were personal to him, when in fact a number of them were household
and/or family living expenses for which respondent owed him 50%.
¶ 19 Petitioner explained that after coming back from their honeymoon in June 2010, he and
respondent discussed how to divide or share expenses, and they agreed that he would pay
respondent $500 every two weeks and also be responsible for paying the cable bill, the dry-
cleaning bill, and the housecleaning bill.
¶ 20 The parties had another discussion about how to share expenses in 2013, after the birth of
their daughter. They agreed that petitioner would increase his biweekly payments to respondent to
$600 and that he would add their daughter to his insurance and pay her medical bills, while
continuing to pay the cable bill, dry cleaning bill, and housecleaning bill.
¶ 21 Petitioner testified that they had a third and final discussion about sharing expenses in 2015,
after the birth of their son. They agreed that petitioner would increase his biweekly payments to
respondent to $1,100, add their son to his insurance, continue to pay the cable bill, dry cleaning
bill, and housecleaning bill and that he would contribute to the grocery bills and to their daughter’s
extracurricular activities. The increase in the biweekly payments was meant to “cover not only
the mortgage but also portions of the car as well as some of the kids’ expenses.”
¶ 22 Petitioner testified that other than the three discussions in 2010, 2013, and 2015, respondent
never asked him to contribute more monies for the payment of household and family living
expenses. Petitioner stated that he owed respondent no further monies under the PNA.
¶ 23 With respect to respondent’s purported payment of childcare expenses to Paula, petitioner
testified that respondent did not actually pay Paula for caring for their children. The monies that
respondent deposited into the joint checking account with Paula were eventually transferred back
to respondent’s individual checking account.
-7- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
¶ 24 After the completion of the trial, the court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of
law. First, the court found that the term “household and family living expenses” as used in the
PNA is ambiguous as it can cover a wide range and type of expenditures and that the PNA was not
clear as to which particular expenditures were covered. The court stated that “any ambiguity in the
use of [the term “household and family living expenses] should be held against [respondent] as the
drafter of the Agreement.” Given the ambiguity, the court looked to parol evidence, specifically,
to petitioner’s testimony regarding the three conversations the parties had in 2010, 2013, and 2015
about the sharing of expenses and found his testimony to be credible. Accordingly, the court
limited the reimbursable expenses covered under the PNA to those expenses discussed in the three
conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015.
¶ 25 The court examined Rychetsky’s report and testimony and noted that her calculations as to
the amounts owed were based on a definition of “marital expenses” that included 8-12 categories;
however, the PNA provided for the reimbursement of “household and family living expenses,” not
the 8-12 categories of “marital expenses” listed in the report. Additionally, the court found some
of the assumptions made by Rychetsky in preparing her report were “problematic.” For example,
respondent’s Amazon charges were listed as reimbursable expenses, however there was “little to
no evidence” to show what was purchased, and thus there was no way to know whether those
charges were actually household and family living expenses or merely personal expenses for
¶ 26 The court stated that Rychetsky’s report was “more helpful in providing evidence of the
parties’ payment history.” The court used the payment history to determine how much monies
petitioner had actually paid for the household and family living expenses described in their
conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015. The court determined that for the period from January 1,
-8- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
2015, to August 31, 2019, petitioner was required to pay $218,557.99 for cable bills, dry cleaning
bills, child medical care, extracurricular activities, and the biweekly payments to respondent.
Petitioner actually paid $213,046.86, leaving a balance due of $5,511.13. For the period from
September 1, 2019, to April 13, 2021, petitioner was required to pay $63,551.15, of which he paid
$44,671, leaving a balance of $18,880.15. For the period from April 14, 2021, to the date of trial,
the court determined that petitioner owed an additional $21,748.30 in missed mortgage and tax
payments and other “carrying expenses” for the former marital home. After adding all the amounts
owed by petitioner during the three separate periods, the court awarded respondent a total of
$46,139.58 for all of her reimbursement claims.
¶ 27 With respect to respondent’s testimony that she paid her mother Paula $2,000 per month
in childcare and required reimbursement therefor, the court found “there is sufficient evidence”
that respondent’s transfers to Paula were not for childcare. The court noted that respondent
“transfers the money from an account titled jointly to her and to her mother. [Respondent] then
takes the very same money that is supposed to compensate her mother for providing childcare and
then uses it for her own purposes. *** [T]he evidence shows both [respondent] and Paula treated
the money as belonging to [respondent] at all times.” The court determined that to the extent Paula
was providing childcare, she was doing it gratuitously and that respondent was not entitled to have
petitioner reimburse her for childcare expenses she was not paying herself.
¶ 28 With respect to the allocation of the marital home, the court determined that the home
should be refinanced in respondent’s name, with respondent buying out petitioner’s interest. The
court found from the evidence at trial that the value of the home was $890,000, with a mortgage
balance of $712,050.86. Pursuant to the PNA, each party was entitled to half the value of the home
($445,000). The PNA also required that all marital debts, including the mortgage, be divided in
-9- Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
proportion to the parties’ respective incomes. Since respondent made $450,000 (or 64.7% of the
parties’ total income) and petitioner made about $245,000 (35.3%), respondent was required to
pay $460,696.91 of the mortgage (64.7%) and petitioner was required to pay $251,353.95 (35.3%).
The court subtracted petitioner’s $251,353.95 share of the mortgage from his $445,000 share of
the value of the home and awarded him $193,646.05 as the buyout of his interest.
¶ 29 Respondent filed a motion to reconsider, arguing that the court erred by barring her from
presenting her claim that petitioner should reimburse her for his share of the household and family
living expenses she paid prior to January 1, 2015. Respondent also argued that the court
miscalculated the amount of reimbursable expenses incurred on and after January 1, 2015, and
erred in its allocation of the mortgage on the marital residence.
¶ 30 The court denied respondent’s motion to reconsider the limitation of time for the
reimbursement claim, stating:
“[T]he Court has substantial concerns about the reliability and evidentiary value of
the expert’s report and testimony [for the period prior to January 1, 2015]. *** [T]he report
relies upon assumptions and self-serving interviews. The underlying assumptions weaken
over time. Although the report also includes a review of bank statements and credit card
statement[s], those documents do little to tell the details of expenditures or the purpose of
the expenditures. To be clear, the Court’s ruling on the admissibility of the expert report
may have been different if better evidence existed as to the expenses [respondent] sought
reimbursement for.
*** If [respondent] expected a judgment in a court of law, she certainly needs
evidence to support her claims. [Respondent] asked the Court to enter a judgment for the
- 10 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
reimbursement of expenses dating back over ten years without sufficient credible
documentation. The Court evaluated the evidence and gave it due weight.
In short, [respondent] misunderstands the Court’s July 7, 2022, Order. It is not a
limitation of her contractual rights. Instead, it is a limitation of the evidence the Court was
going to consider due to the unreliability of the evidence [respondent] was offering to
present. The Court stands on its evidentiary ruling.”
¶ 31 The court next considered respondent’s argument that it had miscalculated the amount
owed to her by petitioner as reimbursement for household and family living expenses incurred on
and after January 1, 2015. The court reiterated that the term “household and family living
expenses” was ambiguous, requiring it to consider parol evidence, specifically, the parties’
conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015 to determine “what the parties agreed to at the time of
contracting.” The court determined that the intent of the PNA, as construed by the parties’
conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015, required petitioner to reimburse respondent for 50% of the
mortgage, HOA fees, homeowners’ insurance, groceries, children’s extra-curricular activities, and
car payments. Petitioner also was required to pay 100% of the cable bill, dry cleaning bill,
children’s medical care, family dining, automobile insurance payments, and gasoline in addition
to making the biweekly payment of $1,100. The court recalculated the amounts paid by the parties
for all these expenses on and after January 1, 2015, and amended its judgment to award respondent
$58,988.65 in reimbursement from petitioner for his share of the expenses which he had failed to
pay.
¶ 32 The court denied the motion to reconsider its allocation of the mortgage on the marital
residence. Respondent filed her notice of appeal on March 18, 2024. On April 17, 2024, the court
entered an order sanctioning respondent for intentionally or recklessly filing a financial affidavit
- 11 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
with respect to childcare expenses. Respondent filed a second notice of appeal on April 22, 2024,
and we consolidated the two appeals. In her appellant’s brief, though, respondent makes no
arguments for reversal of the April 17 sanctions order and therefore has forfeited review thereof.
See Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct. 1, 2020). We proceed to address respondent’s
appeal of the court’s judgment on her reimbursement claim.
¶ 33 On appeal, respondent argues that the circuit court erred in its in limine ruling by barring
her from presenting evidence “for any reimbursement claims” for the household and family living
expenses she paid prior to January 1, 2015. Respondent argues that under the PNA, she was entitled
to reimbursement from petitioner for his portion of the household and family living expenses for
the entire marriage, including the period from May 8, 2010, to December 31, 2014.
¶ 34 Petitioner contends that respondent forfeited the issue by failing to make an offer of proof
as to Rychetsky’s testimony regarding the amount of reimbursable household and family living
expenses for the period from May 8, 2010, to December 31, 2014. Generally, when a motion in
limine is granted, an adequate offer of proof at trial is required to preserve the issue for review
unless the trial court clearly understood the nature and character of the evidence sought to be
introduced. Snelson v. Kamm, 204 Ill. 2d 1, 23 (2003) and Dillon v. Evanston Hospital, 199 Ill. 2d
483, 495 (2002). An offer of proof was not required under the facts of this case, as the circuit court
was well-aware of the substance of Rychetsky’s testimony given that her report containing her
findings regarding reimbursable household and family living expenses had been filed with the
court in May 2022 and was the subject of the in limine hearing. We find no forfeiture and proceed
to address the merits of the issue.
¶ 35 A prenuptial agreement is a contract for which the rules governing the interpretation of
contracts apply. Kranzler v. Kranzler, 2018 IL App (1st) 171169, ¶¶ 39, 95. The primary objective
- 12 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
when construing a contract is to give effect to the intent of the parties. Thompson v. Gordon, 241
Ill. 2d 428, 441 (2011). The plain language of the contract itself is the best indicator of that intent.
Id. The contract should be read as a whole, with each provision viewed in light of the other
provisions. Id. A court will not “interpret a contract in a manner that would nullify or render
provisions meaningless, or in a way that is contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the
language used.” Id. at 442. If the language is unambiguous, the agreement is interpreted without
resort to parol evidence. Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp., 185 Ill. 2d 457, 462 (1999).
However, if the court finds that the language is susceptible to more than one meaning, then an
ambiguity exists and parol evidence may be used to aid in resolving the ambiguity. Id. at 462-63.
Moreover, any ambiguity in the terms of a contract is construed against its drafter. Dowd & Dowd,
Ltd. v. Gleason, 181 Ill. 2d 460, 479 (1998). Interpretation of a contract is a question of law
reviewed de novo. In re Marriage of Velasquez, 295 Ill. App. 3d 350, 356 (1998).
¶ 36 The PNA here expressly and unambiguously provides that both parties shall make equal
financial contributions to their household and family living expenses “during the marriage,” and
that if one party does not comply with this provision, the other party has the right to receive
reimbursement for the payments made on the non-complying party’s behalf. The parties here were
married on May 8, 2010, and the dissolution judgment was entered on December 27, 2022. Under
the express language of the PNA, respondent was entitled to reimbursement for 50% of the
household and family living expenses for which she paid (and for which petitioner did not
contribute) throughout the duration of the marriage from May 8, 2010, to December 27, 2022. In
its July 7, 2022, order, though, the circuit court effectively rewrote the PNA by barring respondent
from presenting any evidence in support of her reimbursement claims for petitioner’s share of the
household and family living expenses which she paid prior to January 1, 2015. The court thereby
- 13 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
limited the timeframe for recovery of those expenses for only the period from January 1, 2015,
through December 27, 2022. The court’s interpretation of the PNA to so limit respondent’s
timeframe for recovery of petitioner’s share of the household and family living expenses was
contrary to the plain and obvious meaning of the language used and was error under our de novo
review of the PNA.
¶ 37 Petitioner contends, though, that the circuit court’s decision to limit respondent’s
timeframe for recovery was not based on any misinterpretation of the PNA but rather was an
evidentiary decision based on its substantial concerns regarding the reliability of Rychetsky’s
report. Where the circuit court’s ruling was not based on an error of law but instead was an
evidentiary decision based on the facts and circumstances of the case, our review is for an abuse
of discretion. In re Commitment of Brown, 2021 IL App (1st) 191606, ¶ 90. Accordingly, we
consider whether the court abused its discretion here by limiting respondent’s timeframe for
recovery based on its concerns regarding the reliability of Rychetsky’s report.
¶ 38 The court’s ruling here was made on July 7, 2022, after a hearing on petitioner’s motion in
limine. Petitioner initially argues that respondent failed to provide a transcript of the July 7 hearing
or an acceptable Rule 323 substitute, and as such we should presume that the ruling was not in
error. Petitioner cites Foutch v. O’Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984), the seminal case holding that the
appellant bears the burden of providing us a sufficient record for review and in the absence of such
a record we presume that the order conformed with the law and had an adequate factual basis. Id.
at 391-92.
¶ 39 Unlike in Foutch, where the lack of a transcript made it otherwise impossible to determine
the reason for the trial court’s ruling, the court here explained the basis for its July 7 ruling when
granting in part and denying in part respondent’s motion to reconsider, thereby providing us with
- 14 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
a sufficiently complete record such that we may address respondent’s appeal. The court explained
that Rychetsky’s report was the central piece of evidence supporting respondent’s reimbursement
claims for the period predating January 1, 2015, yet the report relied on assumptions and self-
serving interviews that “weaken over time.” Further, the documents Rychetsky relied on in her
report “do little to tell the details of expenditures or the purpose of the expenditures.” The court
concluded that Rychetsky had failed to provide “credible documentation” supporting her findings
for the amounts petitioner allegedly owed in reimbursement for household and family living
expenses predating January 1, 2015, and as such the court barred respondent from presenting
evidence “for any reimbursement claims” for the time period of May 8, 2010, to December 31,
2014.
¶ 40 The court’s ruling barring any evidence, and in particular Rychetsky’s report, for any
reimbursement claim for May 8, 2010, through December 31, 2014, was an abuse of discretion.
Rychetsky’s report of over 400 pages is included in the appellate record and contains listings of
thousands of the parties’ bank and credit card transactions from May 2010 through December
2021. The circuit court found that the bank and credit card transactions relied upon by Rychetsky
for determining the household and family living expenditures predating January 1, 2015, were
insufficiently detailed and hence unreliable. Therefore, the court barred respondent from
presenting Rychetsky’s report in support of her reimbursement claims for the period from May 8,
2010, through December 31, 2014. The court did not find any similar unreliability for the bank
and credit card transactions relied upon by Rychetsky when considering the household and family
living expenses postdating December 31, 2014, and therefore it admitted her report in support of
respondent’s reimbursement claims for the period from January 1, 2015, to December 27, 2022.
- 15 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
¶ 41 However, our review of Rychetsky’s report shows that the bank and credit card transactions
relied upon by her for determining the household and family living expenditures from January 1,
2015, to December 27, 2022, were not in any way more detailed or specific than those prior to
January 1, 2015. Rychetsky relied on the same types of records of financial transactions, with the
same degree of specificity, when considering the household and family living expenditures both
before and after January 1, 2015. On this record, then, there was simply no basis for the court to
admit and consider Rychetsky’s report in support of respondent’s reimbursement claims for the
period from January 1, 2015, through December 27, 2022, yet to bar admission of Rychetsky’s
report for respondent’s reimbursement claims for the period from May 8, 2010, through December
31, 2014. Accordingly, we vacate the July 7, 2022, in limine order and the portion of the August
2, 2023, judgment adjudicating respondent’s reimbursement claims, and remand for a hearing on
respondent’s reimbursement claims covering the period from May 8, 2010, through December 31,
2014. Any reimbursement awarded respondent for the household and family living expenses she
paid from May 8, 2010, through December 31, 2014, shall be added to the $58,988.65 awarded
her for the period postdating December 31, 2014.
¶ 42 Next, respondent argues that the circuit court erred by finding the term “household and
family living expenses” as used in the PNA to be ambiguous and by considering parol evidence to
determine its meaning. Respondent specifically takes issue with the court considering petitioner’s
testimony regarding the three conversations the parties allegedly had in 2010, 2013, and 2015,
limiting the scope of the term. Respondent contends that the court never should have considered
the parties’ oral modifications of the PNA, as section 6 of the Illinois Uniform Premarital
Agreement Act expressly provides that “[a]fter marriage, a premarital agreement may be amended
or revoked only by a written agreement signed by the parties.” 750 ILCS 10/6 (West 2024).
- 16 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
¶ 43 We find no error under the facts of this case. As discussed, the parties’ PNA is a contract
subject to the rules of contract interpretation. Kranzler, 2018 IL App (1st) 171169, ¶ 39, ¶ 95. If
the language of the PNA is unambiguous, it must be interpreted without resort to parol evidence.
Air Safety, 185 Ill. 2d at 462. However, if an ambiguity exists such that the language of the PNA
is susceptible to more than one meaning, then the court may use parol evidence to resolve the
ambiguity. Id. at 462-63. “Where a contract is ambiguous, courts may determine the parties’ intent
by looking to the interpretation which the parties themselves have placed on the agreement as
shown by their contemporaneous or subsequent acts or conduct.” Thread and Gage Co., Inc. v.
Kucinski, 116 Ill. App. 3d 178, 183 (1983). See also In re Marriage of Whetstone, 87 Ill. App. 3d
164, 167 (1980); McLean County Bank v. Brokaw, 119 Ill. 2d 405, 412 (1988). The determination
of whether a contract is ambiguous is reviewed de novo. Standlee v. Bostedt, 2019 IL App (2d)
180325, ¶ 57.
¶ 44 The circuit court noted that while the PNA provides that the parties were required to make
equal contributions to their “household and family living expenses” during the marriage, the PNA
never defined which expenses fell within the category of “household and family living expenses.”
While the parties agreed at trial as to some of the expenses covered, such as the mortgage, HOA
fees, and groceries, they disagreed over other expenses (such as the extent to which extracurricular
and storage fees were covered). Respondent’s expert Rychetsky also expressed confusion over the
meaning of the term, as she prepared two different analyses of the expenses covered, one which
considered eight expenses and another considering an additional four expenses that “could be”
covered. On this record, we cannot say the court erred by determining that the term was ambiguous
as to which expenses were covered and in considering parol evidence regarding the parties’
conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015 as an aid to interpreting its meaning while also construing
- 17 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
any ambiguity against respondent as the drafter of the PNA. As noted, any ambiguity in a contract
is construed against its drafter. Dowd, 181 Ill. 2d at 479. Also, “ ‘[w]hen a contract is ambiguous
or silent on a disputed issue, a court may, in order to determine the intent of the parties at the time
of contracting, consider the contemporaneous or subsequent acts of the parties to the contract’ ”).
Szafranski v. Dunston, 2015 IL App (1st) 122975-B, ¶ 75 (quoting Vole, Inc. v. Georgacopoulos,
181 Ill. App. 3d 1012, 1021 (1989)).
¶ 45 Respondent questions the credibility of petitioner’s testimony regarding the parties’
conversations in 2010, 2013, and 2015. The court found that petitioner’s testimony was credible
and supported by documents showing he paid the bills as agreed to in their conversations. We defer
to the circuit court’s credibility determinations as it saw and heard the witnesses. Standlee, 2019
IL App (2d) 180325, ¶ 57.
¶ 46 Finally, respondent argues that the court erred in its allocation of the mortgage on the
marital residence. The court determined to award respondent the home, subject to her buying out
petitioner’s interest. The court examined the PNA, which shows that each party was entitled to
50% of the value of the marital residence, with the mortgage being divided in proportion to the
parties’ respective incomes. The circuit court followed the PNA to the letter. The court found from
the evidence at trial that the value of the home was $890,000, meaning that each party was entitled
to $445,000. The mortgage balance was $712,050.86, which the court divided in proportion to
their respective incomes. Since respondent made $450,000 or 64.7% of the parties’ total income,
and petitioner made $245,000 or 35.3%, the court ordered respondent to pay $460,696.61 of the
mortgage (64.7%) and petitioner to pay $251,353.95 (35.3%). The court subtracted petitioner’s
$251,353.95 share of the mortgage from his $445,000 share of the value of the marital home and
awarded him $193,646.05 as the buyout of his interest. We find no error.
- 18 - Nos. 1-24-0562 and 1-24-0900 (consolidated)
¶ 47 Respondent further contends that the court erred in its ruling on her motion to reconsider.
We find respondent’s argument duplicative of the issues already addressed.
¶ 48 For all the foregoing reasons, we vacate the July 7, 2022, in limine order and the portion
of the August 2, 2023, judgment adjudicating respondent’s reimbursement claims, and remand for
further proceedings. We affirm the portion of the judgment allocating the mortgage on the marital
residence.
¶ 49 Affirmed in part and vacated in part; cause remanded with directions.
- 19 -