IN THE UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

ZHU ZHAI HOLDINGS LIMITED and )

PETER PUI TAK LEE, )

Plaintiff, )

) 

v. )

) Case No. 20-cv-4985

STEVEN IVANKOVICH, )

Defendant, )

)

)

)

ADVERSE CLAIM OF JEANETTE IVANKOVICH

NOW COMES the Movant, JEANETTE IVANKOVICH, by and through her attorneys, 

SCHILLER, DuCANTO & FLECK LLP, and pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/501, 750 ILCS 5/503, 735 

ILCS 5/12-710, 735 ILCS 5/2-1402, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69, and in support thereof 

states as follows:

FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

1. Adverse Claimant, Jeanette Ivankovich (“Jeanette”), is the spouse of judgment

debtor, Steven Ivankovich (“Steven”). 

2. On October 22, 2021, Jeanette filed for dissolution of her marriage to Steven in the 

Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, case number 2021 D 9220 (“divorce case”). Jeanette’s 

Petition for Dissolution of Marriage remains pending and undetermined.

3. A Special Master was appointed by this Court on January 19, 2024 to specifically 

address who has the superior interest in those funds, so Jeanette’s Adverse Claim comes at an ideal 

time for the Special Master to determine who has the priority interest in the escrowed funds. (See ¶8 

of January 19, 2024 Order). 

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:3837
4. In the current case, Plaintiffs Zhu Zhai Holdings Limited and Peter Pui Tak Lee 

(hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Plaintiffs”), obtained a judgment in the amount of 

$4,503,842.00 against Steven on or about August 17, 2021. 

5. The Plaintiffs knew about Steven and Jeanette’s pending divorce, yet specifically 

chose not to send Jeanette notice as an adverse claimant when they discovered that third-party 

Respondent, Walker & Dunlop LLC were holding over a million dollars, even though she is clearly 

an adverse claimant as Steven’s wife in a pending divorce action. Jeanette has already been 

prejudiced for Judgment Creditor’s failure to properly provide notice to an adverse claimant who 

clearly has a superior right to the escrowed funds.

COUNT I: ADVERSE CLAIM FOR UNPAID CHILD SUPPORT AND 

MAINTENANCE

1-5. Jeanette restates and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-5 of the Facts Common 

to All Counts as if fully set forth herein.

6. On November 6, 2023, an Order was entered by the Honorable Judge Patrick Powers 

of the Circuit Court of Cook County ordering Steven to pay Jeanette temporary child support and 

maintenance. A true and correct copy of the November 6, 2023 Order is attached hereto and 

incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 

7. Specifically, starting November 1, 2023, Steven was ordered to pay child support in 

the amount of $6,933.00 per month and temporary maintenance in the amount of $14,180.00 per 

month (total support of $21,113.00 per month). 

8. Moreover, the November 6, 2023 Order also required Steven to pay a lump sum 

amount of $506,712.00 for retroactive support to Jeanette by November 27, 2023. To date, Steven 

has not paid Jeanette a penny of child support or maintenance. 

9. On November 1, 2023, Steven failed to make his maintenance payment to Jeanette in 

the amount of $14,180.00 and child support payment to Jeanette in the amount of $6,933.00. 

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:3838
10. On November 27, 2023, Steven failed to make his retroactive support payment to 

Jeanette in the amount of $506,712.00.

11. On December 1, 2023, Steven failed to make his maintenance payment to Jeanette in 

the amount of $14,180.00 and child support payment to Jeanette in the amount of $6,933.00. 

12. On January 1, 2024, Steven failed to make his maintenance payment to Jeanette in the 

amount of $14,180.00 and child support payment to Jeanette in the amount of $6,933.00. 

13. On February 1, 2024, Steven failed to make his maintenance payment to Jeanette in 

the amount of $14,180.00 and child support payment to Jeanette in the amount of $6,933.00. 

14. If history is any indicator, it is clear that Steven has no intention of complying with 

the November 6, 2023 Order. 

15. Jeanette’s financial situation is dire. She has nothing to support her children, nothing 

to support herself, and is owed approximately $591,164.00 in support (excluding interest), which 

continues to accrue each month.

16. If this Court determines the escrowed funds belong to Steven pursuant to the Illinois 

Citation Act, 735 ILCS 5/2-1402 and are, therefore, subject to turnover, Jeanette has a priority 

interest in the funds over the judgment creditor and is entitled to turnover of the funds to satisfy the 

outstanding child support and maintenance judgments against Steven. She also has a claim to the 

funds since would be considered part of her and Steven’s marital estate. 

17. In Illinois, each unpaid maintenance and child support payment immediately becomes 

a judgment by operation of law on the day it is due and may be enforced as such. Additionally, a lien 

arises by operation of law against the real and personal property of the obligor for each installment of 

overdue support owed by the obligor. 750 ILCS 5/504(b-7); 750 ILCS 5/505(d).

18. Judgments arising under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-7) and 750 ILCS 5/505(d) have the full 

force, effect, and attributes of any other Illinois judgment. 

19. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69 states, in relevant part,

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:3839
“A money judgment is enforced by a writ of execution, unless the court directs 

otherwise. The procedure on execution--and in proceedings supplementary to and in 

aid of judgment or execution--must accord with the procedure of the state where 

the court is located, but a federal statute governs to the extent it applies.” Fed. R. 

Civ. Pro. 69(a)(1)(Emphasis Added). 

20. “In the absence of a federal statutory provision setting priorities between child 

support order garnishments and judgment creditor garnishments, the matter of priority is determined 

by Illinois law. As between judgment creditor garnishments and support order garnishments, Illinois 

gives priority to those for support regardless of the timing of those garnishments.” 20 Ill. Law and 

Prac. Garnishment § 28; See Com. Edison v. Denson, 144 Ill. App. 3d 383, 386 (3rd Dist. 1986). 

21. The Illinois Citation Act, 735 ILCS 5/2-1402 states, inter alia, 

“If it appears that any property, chose in action, credit or effect discovered, or any 

interest therein, is claimed by any person, the court shall, as in garnishment 

proceedings, permit or require the claimant to appear and maintain his or her right. 

The rights of the person cited and the rights of any adverse claimant shall be asserted 

and determined pursuant to the law relating to garnishment proceedings.” 735 ILCS 

5/2-1402(g). 

22. The Illinois Adverse Claims statute, 735 ILCS 5/12-710(c), states that claims for 

spousal support or dependent children “shall be superior to all other claims for garnishment of 

property.”

23. Unpaid maintenance is a “claim for support of a spouse” within the meaning of 735 

ILCS 5/12-710(c). Therefore, each and every unpaid maintenance and child support payment owed to 

Jeanette is a claim superior over all other non-material support claims pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/12-

710(c). 

24. All of Jeanette’s current claims and judgments for unpaid maintenance and child 

support are superior to the Plaintiffs’ claims and liens. Further, any future unpaid maintenance and/or 

child support owed to Jeanette that arises would also be superior to the Plaintiffs’ claims and liens. 

WHEREFORE, Adverse Claimant, Jeanette Ivankovich, requests the following relief from 

this Honorable Court:

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:3840
A. Make a finding and determination that the approximately $1,494,619.10 held in 

escrow with the Northern District of Illinois Court registry belong to Steven Ivankovich pursuant to 

735 ILCS 5/2-1402 and are subject to turnover; 

B. Make a finding and determination that all of Jeanette’s current claims and judgments 

for unpaid maintenance are superior to Plaintiffs’ claims and liens;

C. Make a finding and determination that any of Jeanette’s claims and judgments for 

unpaid maintenance that arise in the future would become superior to Plaintiffs’ claims and liens at 

the time they arise;

D. Enter an order requiring Plaintiffs to release their claims and liens to the extent that 

they affect Jeanette’s claims and judgments;

E. Allow Plaintiffs to keep their citations in place subordinate to Jeanette’s claims and 

judgments so that Plaintiffs may maintain their claim and lien priority with respect to other creditors; 

and 

F. Any relief that the Court deems necessary and just.

COUNT II: ADVERSE CLAIM FOR INTERIM FEE AWARD

1-24. Jeanette restates and realleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1-24 of the Facts 

Common to All Counts and Count I as if fully set forth herein.

25. On May 18, 2023, an Interim Fee Order was entered which required Steven to pay 

Schiller DuCanto & Fleck LLP Four Hundred Thousand Dollars ($400,000) and Twenty-Five

Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for the appointment of a forensic accounting expert within 45 days (by 

July 3, 2023). A true and correct copy of the May 18, 2023 Interim Fee Order is attached hereto and 

incorporated herein as Exhibit B.

26. The May 18, 2023 Interim Fee Award is an interim award which assumes that the 

payment is an advance from the parties’ marital estate. 750 ILCS 5/501(c-1)(2).

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:3841
27. During a dissolution of marriage action, all property is presumed to be marital. 750 

ILCS 5/503(b)(1). Each spouse has a species of common ownership in the marital property which 

vests at the time the dissolution proceedings are commenced. 750 ILCS 503(e).

28. Section 4 of the Rights of Married Persons Act states,

“For all civil injuries committed by a married person, damages may be recovered 

from that person alone, and his or her spouse shall not be responsible for those 

damages, except in cases where he or she would be jointly responsible with that 

person if the marriage did not exist.” 750 ILCS 65/4 (Emphasis Added).

29. In this case, Jeanette would not be jointly responsible with Steven for the judgment 

held by the Plaintiffs if the marriage did not exist. 

30. Furthermore, Section 5 of the Rights of the Married Persons Act of states, in relevant 

part,

“... (except as herein otherwise provided) [the husband and the wife] shall not be 

liable for the separate debts of each other, nor shall the wages, earnings or property 

of either, nor the rent or income of such property, be liable for the separate debts of 

the other.” 750 ILCS 65/5. (Emphasis Added).

31. If this Court determines the escrowed funds belong to Steven pursuant to the Illinois 

Citation Act, 735 ILCS 5/2-1402, then the escrowed funds are presumed to be marital property. Thus, 

the escrowed funds are Jeanette’s marital property, in whole or part. 

32. The May 18, 2023 Interim Fee Award remains unpaid. Jeanette has the right to access 

the marital estate to ensure compliance with the May 18, 2023 Interim Fee Award. Her portion of the 

marital estate is, in whole or in part her property, and thus should be awarded to her. The Judgment 

Creditor’s judgment is against Steven individually, not Jeanette. Therefore, Jeanette’s marital 

property should not go to Steven’s individual creditors, only Steven’s portion should.

33. The May 18, 2023 Interim Fee Award should be honored in light of Jeanette’s marital 

property rights and take priority over Steven’s creditors.

WHEREFORE, Adverse Claimant, Jeanette Ivankovich, requests the following relief from 

this Honorable Court:

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:3842
A. Make a finding and determination that the approximately $1,494,619.10 held in 

escrow with the Northern District of Illinois Court registry belong to Steven Ivankovich pursuant to 

735 ILCS 5/2-1402 and are subject to turnover; 

B. Make a finding and determination that the approximately $1,494,619.10 held in 

escrow with the Northern District of Illinois Court registry are the marital property of Jeanette and 

Steven Ivankovich pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-1402 and 750 ILCS 5/503;

C. Make a finding and determination that Jeanette is entitled to at least $425,000 of the 

approximately $1,494,619.10 held in escrow with the Northern District of Illinois Court registry as 

and for an advance to her from the parties’ marital estate; 

D. Make a finding and determination that all of Jeanette’s marital property rights are 

superior to Plaintiffs’ claims and liens;

E. Enter an order requiring Plaintiffs to release their claims and liens to the extent that 

they affect Jeanette’s claims and judgments; and

F. Any relief that the Court deems necessary and just.

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Morgan B. Handwerker

One of Movant’s Attorneys

Morgan B. Handwerker (ARDC #6342045)

SCHILLER DU CANTO & FLECK LLP

Attorneys for Movant Jeanette Ivankovich

321 N. Clark Street, Suite 1200

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Telephone No. (312) 641-5560

Facsimile Telephone No. (312) 641-6361

Case: 1:20-cv-04985 Document #: 299 Filed: 02/20/24 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:3843