Court Opinion

ID: 9709928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:57:47.49131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:52.798240
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE McCULLOUGH, specially concurring: I agree with the result as set forth by the majority but believe that the trial court does have a responsibility to follow the provisions of section 502 of the Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 40, par. 502). That section provides that the parties may enter into a written or oral agreement containing provisions for the disposition of the property owned by them. As set forth in the Act, section 502(b), the terms of the agreement are binding upon the court unless it finds, after considering certain matters, that the agreement is unconscionable. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 40, par. 502(b). Subparagraph (d) provides: “Unless the agreement provides to the contrary, its terms shall be set forth in the judgment, and the parties shall be ordered to perform under such terms, or if the agreement provides that its terms shall not be set forth in the judgment, the judgment shall identify the agreement and state that the court has approved its terms.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 40, par. 502(d). Here, the trial court found that the parties had entered into an agreement. The court did not set forth the terms of the agreement in the judgment, nor did it identify the agreement and state that the court had approved its terms. If this had been done by the trial court, the disposition of this appeal would be readily made. Many times, where children are not involved and the parties have reached a settlement, the trial court does not become involved. This case shows the importance of complying with the provisions of section 502. Because the terms of the agreement were brought out in the evidence before the trial court on the petition for direction, this court can, in the interests of judicial economy, find that the agreement was not unconscionable and enforce the terms thereof.