2021 IL App (2d) 200392-U No. 2 -20-0392 Order filed July 9, 2021 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS
SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court LEON AZRIKAN ) of Lake County. ) Petitioner

- Appellee , ) ) and ) No. 95-D-440 ) ALEXANDRA AZRIKAN ) ) Respondent, ) ) (Vadim Azrikan, Third

- Party Petitioner - ) Honorable Appellant v. Leon Azrikan, Third

- Party ) Charles W. Smith, Respondent- Appellee). ) Judge, Presiding.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUSTICE B IRKETT delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice Bridges and Justice Hudson concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶ 1 Held : The trial court properly dismissed the child’s petition to enforce, as a third

- party beneficiary, a marital settlement agreement by which the father would contribute toward the child’s higher education expenses. Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolutio n of Marriage Act, the child was not considered a third

- party beneficiary of the agreement. Moreover, the trial court no longer had authority to entertain a contribution action, as the child had turned 23 and completed his bachelor’s degree before he file d his petition.2021 IL App (2d) 200392-U

- 2

- ¶ 2 Third- party petitioner, Vadim A zrikan (Vadim) , appeals the trial court ’ s dismissal of his pleading titled “ Third-P arty B eneficiary P etition to E nforce Educational E xpenses for a NonMinor Child P ursuant to 750 ILCS 5/513(i). ” The trial court determined that Vadim lacked standing under section 513(i) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/513 (i) (West 2018)) to bring a third

- party petition and that, in the alternative, the statutory limitati on period had expired. We agree that Vadim lack ed standing. Accordingly, we affirm

. ¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND ¶ 4 On March 23, 1995, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage of petitioner,
Leon A zr ikan (Leon) , and respondent, Alexandra Az r ikan (Alexan dra) . Vadim , born January 5, 1978, was the sole child born to the parties. Leon and Alexandra entered into a settlement agreement that was incorporated into the judgment. Under that agreement, Leon would be responsible , with various contingencies, for Vadim’s higher education expenses

. ¶ 5 On October 3, 2019, Vadim moved to intervene. That motion was granted. On November 12, 2019, he filed a third

- party beneficiary petition see king to enforce the educational expenses provi sion of the settlement agreement . Vadim alleged that Alexa n dra died on April 26, 2009 , and that , at the time of her death, neither Alexandra no r Leon had contributed any amount toward
V adim ’ s college expenses. He also alleged that Alexandra ’ s death gave him standing under section 513(i) to enforce the settlement agreement as a third

- party beneficiary . In the petition, Vadim stated that he attended college between 1998 and 2001 and obtained an undergraduate degree. He also began an online MBA program, which he had yet to complete. Vadim asked that Leon be compelled under the dissolution judgment to contribute to his college expenses. ¶ 6 Leon moved to strike the petition, arguing in part that Vadim lacked standing to bring the action as a third

- party beneficiary and that the doctrine of l aches also applied. The parties agreed2021 IL App (2d) 200392-U

- 3

- that the matter would be decided on the pleadings. The trial court dismissed the petition. The court held that Vadim lacked standing under section 513(i) . The court also held that, even if Vadim did have standing, the 10- year limitation period f or bringing the action had expired. See 735 ILCS 5/13- 206 (West 2018). Vadim appeals. ¶ 7 II. ANALYSIS ¶ 8 Vadim asserts that A lexandra’ s death triggered his right to enforce the settlement agreement and that the 10- year limitation period is not applicable because educational expenses are a form of child support that can be enforced at any time. Leon argues that Vadim lacks standing and , alternatively, tha t the limitation period ha s expired or that laches applies. ¶ 9 Section 513(a ) of the Act provides that a court may award money out of the property and income of either party for educational expenses of any child of the parties. 750 ILCS 5/513(a) (West 2018). The authority of the court to do so terminates when, among other things, the child attains the age of 23 or receives a baccalaureate degree. Id. § 513(g). ¶ 10 Before the 2016 amendments to the Act , the First District held that a child had standing as a third

- party beneficiary to bring an action to order compliance with a settlement agreement requiring payment of educational expenses. See e.g. , Miller v. Miller , 163 Ill. App. 3d 602, 617 (1987)

. This court, however, had held that a child lacked standing to enforce provisions of a
pa rent ’s judgment of dissolution. In re Marriage of Garrison , 99 Ill. App. 3d 717, 721 (1981). Section 513(i) , which was added to the Act in 2016 (P ub. A ct 99- 90, § 5-15 ( eff. Jan. 1, 2016 ) (adding 750 ILCS 5/513(i))), clarifie d the matter. That section provides:

“ The child is not a third party beneficiary to the settlement agreement or judgment between the parties after trial and is not entitled to file a petition for contribution. If the parties ’ settlement agreement describes the manner in which a child ’ s educat ional expenses will be2021 IL App (2d) 200392-U

- 4

- paid, or if the court makes an award pursuant to this Section, then the parties are responsible pursuant to that agreement or award for the child ’ s educational expenses, but in no event shall the court consider the child a third party beneficiary of that provision. In the event of the death or legal disability of a party who would have the right to file a petition for contribution, the child of the party may file a petition for contribution. ” 750 ILCS 5/513 (i) (West 2018)

. ¶ 11 Although the settlement agreement was entered before the amendment to section 513, the amendment applies to Vadim ’ s postdecree proceeding

. Section 801(a) of the Act provides that the
Act applies to all proceedings commenced on or after its effective date

. 750 ILCS 5/801(a) (West 2018). T he effective date of the amendment adding section 513(i) was January 1, 2016. See P ub.
A ct 99- 90, § 5-15 ( eff. Jan. 1, 2016 ). Vadim’s petition was filed after that date. Thus, we apply the amended version of the Act to Vadim ’ s petition. See In re Marriage of Carstens , 2018 IL App (2d) 170183, ¶ 29; Potocki v. Potocki , 98 Ill. App. 3d 501, 503 (1981)

. ¶ 12 H ere, under the plain language of section 513(i), Vadim is precluded from bringing a third

party beneficiary petition to enforce the settlement agreement. The settlement agreement provided how educational expenses were to be pa id. Thus, under section 513(i) , “in no event shall the court consider the child a third party beneficiary of that provision.” ¶ 13 Vadim asserts that Alexandra ’ s death provided him with standing. Section 513(i) does provide that, “[i]n the event of the death or legal disability of a party who would have the right to file a petition for contribution, the child of the party may file a petition for contribution.” 750 ILCS 5/513(i) (West 2018). However, Vadim’s position fails for two reasons. First, Vadim sought to enforce the settlement agree ment as a third

- party beneficiary. He did not file a petition asking the court to determine and award contribution. The trial court did not enter any independent award2021 IL App (2d) 200392-U

- 5

- of contribution under section 513, as the matter ha d been addressed in the settlement agreement. Second, a ny authority of the court to award contribution outside of the agreement terminate d when Vadim attain ed the age of 23 or receive d his baccalaureate degree , which was well before the filing of his petition

. Id. § 513(g). Th us— as this is not an action seeking to enforce a right of contribution held by Alexandria when she passed

— the settlement agreement controls and Vadim lack s standing to enforce it as a third

- party beneficiary. See generally In re Marriage of Holderrieth , 181 Ill. App. 3d 199 , 206 (1989) ( settlement agreement, rather than section 513 , applied to determine responsibility for educational expenses). Because we find that Vadim lacked standing, we need not and do not address whether the limitation period has expired or laches applies

. ¶ 14 III. CONCLUSION ¶ 15 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County. ¶ 16 Affirmed.