{ "id": 4273323, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF OZMA TABASSUM, Petitioner-Appellant, and JAVED YOUNIS, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Tabassum", "decision_date": "2007-12-07", "docket_number": "No. 2-06-0843", "first_page": "761", "last_page": "781", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "377 Ill. App. 3d 761" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "222 Ill. 2d 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3602377 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "301", "parenthetical": "failure to cite to relevant authority violates Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7)) and results in forfeiture of the argument" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/222/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 Ill. App. 3d 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2560544 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600-01" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/206/0588-01" ] }, { "cite": "292 Ill. App. 3d 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1725042 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638" }, { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/292/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "255 Ill. App. 3d 374", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2991306 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "394" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/255/0374-01" ] }, { "cite": "373 Ill. App. 3d 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4270091 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "25", "parenthetical": "party is estopped from taking a position on appeal that is inconsistent with that taken in trial court" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/373/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 Ill. App. 3d 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3750126 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "205" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/356/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 Ill. App. 3d 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4271225 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/375/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 Ill. App. 3d 336", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2871936 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "339" }, { "page": "340-41", "parenthetical": "where dissipation of $7,800 did not materially affect the division of property, trial court did not abuse its discretion by not charging that amount against the husband's share of marital property" }, { "page": "339" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/259/0336-01" ] }, { "cite": "363 Ill. App. 3d 696", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5766749 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "700" }, { "page": "700" }, { "page": "701-02" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/363/0696-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. Rptr. 3d", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "208", "parenthetical": "statutes requiring financial disclosures before parties to dissolutions agreed to resolve property issues did not apply to postmarital agreements that contemplated reconciliation and were not executed in contemplation of imminent divorce" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "139 Cal. App. 4th 712", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 4th", "case_ids": [ 4006389 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "746", "parenthetical": "statutes requiring financial disclosures before parties to dissolutions agreed to resolve property issues did not apply to postmarital agreements that contemplated reconciliation and were not executed in contemplation of imminent divorce" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-4th/139/0712-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3604612 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350-51", "parenthetical": "factual findings reviewed under manifest weight of the evidence standard" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/223/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 Ariz. 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 1486466 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "89" }, { "page": "58" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/184/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "342 Ill. App. 3d 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3472874 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "224" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/342/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 Ill. App. 3d 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5372946 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/261/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 Ill. App. 3d 1031", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1295646 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1035" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/285/1031-01" ] }, { "cite": "324 Ill. App. 3d 514", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 256275 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "519" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/324/0514-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 Ill. App. 3d 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5574448 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "446" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/341/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "237 Ill. App. 3d 1067", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5164311 ], "weight": 12, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1082" }, { "page": "1082" }, { "page": "1082" }, { "page": "1071" }, { "page": "1081" }, { "page": "1081-82" }, { "page": "1074" }, { "page": "1081" }, { "page": "1082" }, { "page": "1080", "parenthetical": "unconscionable terms have been defined as being improvident, completely one-sided, and oppressive" }, { "page": "1080" }, { "page": "1083", "parenthetical": "postmarital agreement unconscionable because, among other things, it awarded wife only 7.55% of assets listed on balance sheet" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/237/1067-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 Ill. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3605098 ], "weight": 5, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "21" }, { "page": "23" }, { "page": "28" }, { "page": "22" }, { "page": "22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/223/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "99 Ill. 2d 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3164374 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "391-92", "parenthetical": "it is the appellant's burden to provide a sufficiently complete record of trial proceedings to support a claim of error, and the reviewing court will resolve any doubts that arise from the incompleteness of the record against the appellant" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/99/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "253 Ill. App. 3d 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5424225 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/253/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "247 Ill. App. 3d 686", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2928787 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "696" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/247/0686-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 Ill. App. 3d 774", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3618679 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "780" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/171/0774-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 Ill. App. 3d 1038", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 1208034 ], "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1044" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/305/1038-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 957", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4269114 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "960" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/371/0957-01" ] }, { "cite": "209 Ill. 2d 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5461434 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "271" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/209/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "228 Ill. App. 3d 475", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5220282 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "480-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/228/0475-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 Ill. App. 3d 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 5209264 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/230/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "51 Ill. App. 3d 738", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3385001 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "742" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/51/0738-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 Ill. App. 3d 1086", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3718958 ], "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1092" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/343/1086-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N.W 551", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1899, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 Iowa 498", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2108782 ], "year": 1899, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/110/0498-01" ] }, { "cite": "778 S.W.2d 862", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 10019425 ], "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "864", "parenthetical": "where wife agreed not to prosecute a divorce action against her unfaithful husband in exchange for an agreement setting forth property distribution if the parties later divorced, wife supplied consideration, and court upheld agreement" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw2d/778/0862-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 A.D.3d 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.3d", "case_ids": [ 2198226 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "372", "parenthetical": "mere continuation of marriage was not adequate consideration for postnuptial agreement in which wife released claims on husband's property" }, { "page": "75", "parenthetical": "mere continuation of marriage was not adequate consideration for postnuptial agreement in which wife released claims on husband's property" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad3d/8/0371-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.W.3d 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.3d", "case_ids": [ 9242029 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "603", "parenthetical": "where parties were not having marital difficulties at the time they entered postnuptial agreement, it was not a reconciliation agreement, and wife's promise to remain in the marriage was not consideration" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw3d/136/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 N.W. 363", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365-66" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "115 Mich. 264", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1445032 ], "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "270-74" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/115/0264-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 N.E. 737", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "739" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "167 Mass. 211", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 473636 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1897, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216-17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/167/0211-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S.E.2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "293" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 Va. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 1978139 ], "year": 1942, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "227" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/va/179/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 S.E.2d 360", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "363", "parenthetical": "husband's giving up a meritorious claim for divorce and reconciling was not consideration for his wife's transfer of property, because he filed for divorce after receiving the property and had lived with wife only intermittently in between" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 W. Va. 304", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "W. Va.", "case_ids": [ 8580148 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "308-09", "parenthetical": "husband's giving up a meritorious claim for divorce and reconciling was not consideration for his wife's transfer of property, because he filed for divorce after receiving the property and had lived with wife only intermittently in between" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/w-va/166/0304-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Iowa 405", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2303052 ], "year": 1874, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/38/0405-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 Ariz. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 570381 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1964, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193", "parenthetical": "parties' agreement to discontinue divorce suit and resume marital relations was consideration to support their reconciliation agreement" }, { "page": "241", "parenthetical": "parties' agreement to discontinue divorce suit and resume marital relations was consideration to support their reconciliation agreement" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/95/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.W. 520", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "case_ids": [ 8252046 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sw/189/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 A. 595", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "year": 1909, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 R.I. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "R.I.", "case_ids": [ 1316626 ], "year": 1909, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "388-89" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ri/29/0384-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N.Y. 381", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2188442 ], "year": 1883, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "383-84", "parenthetical": "\"it would be a curious policy which should forbid husband and wife to compromise their differences, or preclude either from forgiving a wrong committed by the other\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ny/91/0381-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 Ill. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2536445 ], "year": 1940, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "96" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/375/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "410 Ill. 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5312055 ], "year": 1951, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "542-43", "parenthetical": "wife's agreement to end a separation and return and live with her husband was not consideration for her husband's promise to pay her for doing so, because by returning to and living with her husband, the wife was only performing the duties contemplated by marriage" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/410/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 Ill. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 5314832 ], "year": 1876, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "70" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/82/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 Ill. App. 3d 929", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4022661 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "940" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/348/0929-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ill. App. 3d 1019", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4268371 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1027" }, { "page": "1027-29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/371/1019-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 Ill. 2d 135", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3598317 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "151" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/219/0135-01" ] }, { "cite": "367 Ill. App. 3d 502", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 4265590 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "504" }, { "page": "504", "parenthetical": "questions of law reviewed de novo" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/367/0502-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 Ill. App. 3d 855", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2461380 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "861" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/200/0855-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 Ill. App. 3d 450", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3589472 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "453" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/176/0450-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1816, "char_count": 52325, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.201623823218972e-08, "percentile": 0.43064113004271676 }, "sha256": "18f9595aefc24ee419c91fa7627ee2835839443585991607f39c457870bb58d3", "simhash": "1:19afd7866351d5c5", "word_count": 8430 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:19.728803+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF OZMA TABASSUM, Petitioner-Appellant, and JAVED YOUNIS, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE BOWMAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe marriage of petitioner, Ozma Tabassum, and respondent, Javed Younis, was dissolved on July 27, 2006. On appeal, petitioner argues that the trial court erred by: (1) declaring invalid a postmarital agreement that designated the marital home as petitioner\u2019s nonmarital property in the event of a divorce; (2) limiting its specific finding of dissipation to $5,000; and (3) partially denying petitioner\u2019s request for attorney fees. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.\nI. BACKGROUND\nThe parties were married in Quebec, Canada, on August 27, 2000. Their daughter, Azra, was born on December 15, 2002. The couple purchased a home in Addison, Illinois, on January 30, 2004. In April 2004, petitioner learned that respondent was having an extramarital affair with a coworker. On May 26, 2004, petitioner went to Canada with Azra to visit petitioner\u2019s parents, and they returned on June 13, 2004, about one week later than originally planned. While petitioner was in Canada, she and respondent negotiated the terms of the post-marital agreement, and they signed the agreement on June 15, 2004.\nThe postmarital agreement provides in relevant part:\n\u201cWHEREAS, the Husband has committed acts of infidelity in violation of the bonds of matrimony; and WHEREAS, because of the Husband\u2019s conduct, the Wife has considered filing and prosecuting a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage[;] and\nWHEREAS, the Husband does not want a dissolution of marriage and wants to take steps to reconcile with the Wife and attempt to preserve the marriage; and WHEREAS, the Wife likewise would prefer to reconcile and preserve the marriage, but due to the conduct of the Husband together with the Wife\u2019s dependence on the Husband while married to the husband, the Wife is reluctant to commit to the reconciliation process unless she feels confident about the Husband\u2019s commitment, and unless she receives assurances from the Husband that in the event of an eventual dissolution of the parties\u2019 marriage, she will be receiving the Addison Property in addition to whatever else she would be entitled to receive upon entry of a dissolution in the absence of this Post-[M]arital Agreement; and WHEREAS, based on the circumstances, the Husband agrees that the Wife should receive the Addison Property in addition to whatever else she would be entitled to receive upon entry of a dissolution of marriage or judgment for legal separation in the absence of this Post-Marital Agreement; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that the Addison Property shall at this time remain in the parties\u2019 joint names, but agree that in the event of an eventual legal separation, dissolution of marriage or divorce, the Wife shall receive the Addison Property as her sole and exclusive property. The parties further agree that the distribution of the Addison Property is to be in addition to whatever the Wife would otherwise receive as a result of any such legal separation, dissolution of marriage or divorce. Therefore, such distribution shall not be considered a distribution of marital property to the Wife and shall not be credited as such; and shall not be considered in determining the Wife\u2019s assets, income or expenses for purposes of determining the percentage or portion of the marital estate that either party is to receive ***.\u201d\nLater, the postmarital agreement specifies that if either party files for a legal separation or dissolution, the house \u201cshall be considered the non-marital property of the Wife *** and upon entry of a Judgment, *** the Addison Property shall be awarded to the Wife as her sole, nonmarital property.\u201d The postmarital agreement recites that each party was represented by counsel; believed that the terms of the agreement were fair and reasonable; was sufficiently aware of the other\u2019s assets and liabilities; and expressly waived any right to further disclosure of assets and liabilities. It also states that the house had a fair market value of $450,000 and an outstanding mortgage of about $350,000. The agreement further contains several pages regarding mortgage payments, liens, and related issues.\nPetitioner filed for a dissolution of marriage on November 23, 2004. A trial took place on May 4 and 5, 2006, at which respondent testified as follows. He earned his bachelor\u2019s degree in 1991 and had been working since that time for Trans American Medical Company (TAMSCO), a medical instrument company owned by his mother. He was involved in sales and general management. Respondent\u2019s W-2 forms reflected that he earned the following amounts from TAMSCO: $40,032 in 2000; $40,350.60 in 2001; $43,333.20 in 2002; $49,833.18 in 2003; $45,499.88 in 2004; and $51,999.84 in 2005. These amounts represented his entire income for each year, other than a cash bonus that he usually received during the first or second quarter of the following year. The amount of the bonus was determined through discussions between respondent and his parents. His bonuses averaged a few thousand dollars, and he did not remember any bonuses larger than $8,000 or $9,000. TAMSCO also paid all of the expenses of respondent\u2019s Jaguar.\nRespondent himself owned a company called American Pioneer Instruments, Inc. (American Pioneer). The parties stipulated that it was incorporated on May 11, 2000, and involuntarily dissolved on October 1, 2005, for failure to pay franchise taxes. Respondent testified that he had never filed tax returns for the company. American Pioneer still had a bank account with about $200 in it. The latest bank statement he had was from April 29, 2005. Respondent later produced a statement from April 26, 2006. It showed that the account had an ending balance of $269.09 and that a check for $6,000 had been written on April 18, 2006, to New Hampshire Forge, Inc. (NHF). Respondent testified that he issued the check, pursuant to an invoice, to pay for supplies that NHF had sent. Respondent admitted that the invoice indicated that it was for TAMSCO, but he testified that this was a mistake and that it should have stated American Pioneer. TAMSCO did not buy American-made products, while American Pioneer did.\nThe parties stipulated that respondent\u2019s personal bank account showed wire transfer deposits of $17,470 on March 25, 2003, and $17,703 on March 7, 2004. Respondent testified that they came from a company in Mexico. The payments were either for TAMSCO or one of its suppliers in Pakistan, but the money went through respondent\u2019s personal account because the client wanted to avoid paying additional Mexican customs taxes.\nRespondent admitted that he and petitioner had made changes to the postmarital agreement before it was finalized and that an attorney represented him in connection with the document. At that time, he was not aware of petitioner\u2019s assets, but he did not subsequently learn anything new. When respondent first agreed to sign the postmarital agreement, petitioner was in Canada with Azra. Respondent was feeling afraid, panicky, depressed, vulnerable, and uncertain. He feared that he and petitioner would get into an international custody battle and that it would be months or years before he saw Azra again. Petitioner said that she did not want to come back to the United States unless he signed the contract. Respondent admitted that during his deposition, he testified:\n\u201c[The] last conversation when I refused to sign the post-nup, she said to me, okay, I am going to file for divorce. I am going to get a quick dissolution of the marriage. And from that, I assumed that she would still have the baby in Canada. She didn\u2019t come out and say, you know, I am going to keep the baby up here. But she had it. She had the baby with her. She was late coming back to the United States. And I, you know, \u2014 I think that anyone would have assumed that she was going to keep the baby up there. And it would have taken me months legally to bring the baby back to America.\u201d\nAt trial, respondent testified that basically petitioner overstayed her trip in Canada and was refusing to come back to the United States unless he signed the postmarital agreement. Respondent did not think that the agreement was fair. At the time that he signed it, he was still concerned that petitioner would \u201ctake off\u2019 with Azra, and he was feeling very vulnerable. Petitioner got a job three or four months after she signed the document, and she filed for divorce one or two months after that. Respondent was surprised by the divorce filing because petitioner had promised to stay with him.\nOn November 1, 2004, respondent wrote a $5,000 check from the parties\u2019 joint account to Mehmood Drea. Respondent wanted to give Mehmood the check because respondent had \u201churt him\u201d by having a relationship with Mehmood\u2019s wife, Meyada Drea. The person who was supposed to deliver the check to Mehmood\u2019s house instead gave it to Meyada. Meyada either deposited the check into her account or cashed it. Respondent did not consult with petitioner before writing the check. After petitioner returned from Canada, Meyada called the house only two times. Meyada also sent only one e-mail, which respondent printed out with the intent of discussing it with petitioner. Respondent attended marital and sex counseling with petitioner, and it was petitioner\u2019s decision to end the counseling.\nRespondent testified that petitioner was working prior to Azra\u2019s birth but was laid off during her maternity leave. She started working again around September or October 2004. Also around October 2004, petitioner asked him to leave the house. However, respondent did not leave until petitioner filed for divorce in November 2004.\nPetitioner provided the following testimony. In April 2004, she came across e-mails that respondent was reading and learned that he was having an affair with Meyada, his secretary at TAMSCO. The next day, petitioner set up marriage counseling.\nPetitioner went to Canada with Azra on May 26, 2004. Petitioner\u2019s parents had been in the United States for five or six weeks, and petitioner went back to Canada with them because she still needed help with Azra and was feeling depressed, vulnerable, and anxious about respondent\u2019s affair. Respondent knew of the trip and provided her with a letter allowing her to take Azra out of the country. In order to attend a niece\u2019s birthday party, petitioner stayed about one week longer than the two weeks she had originally planned. Petitioner told respondent of her new plan, and he \u201cwas fine with it.\u201d She returned on June 13, 2004.\nPetitioner was the one who suggested the postmarital agreement. Petitioner wanted the agreement for financial security and to ensure that respondent was taking their marriage seriously. They discussed and negotiated the contract while petitioner was in Canada, and they were both represented by counsel. Petitioner admitted that on May 27, 2004, she wrote an e-mail to respondent that stated, \u201cThis contract is from you to me. The problem I had is you. I cannot trust you since you let me down. This contract is going to stay with me if we divorce.\u201d The parties came to an agreement by the time that petitioner came back, and they signed the contract on June 15, 2004. At that time, petitioner intended to stay permanently married to respondent.\nImmediately after they signed the postmarital agreement, the marriage was \u201cfine.\u201d Petitioner and respondent took steps to make the marriage work, such as going to marital counseling. They went out to eat at their favorite places, went for bike rides, and attended barbecues and picnics as a family. Petitioner tried to \u201cdo all the same things [she] used to do before [the postmarital agreement] was signed,\u201d such as make respondent a cup of tea at night and call him at work to ask how his day was going. Petitioner read a relationship book and talked about it a little with respondent. The parties also \u201ctried to attend religious conventions as much as possible.\u201d Petitioner usually initiated the activities, and respondent went along with them. In July 2004, petitioner learned that respondent had been looking at Internet pornography since he was about 18 years old. Petitioner still tried to work on the marriage. They went to sex counseling and took a trip during the first week of August.\nAfter they signed the postmarital agreement, petitioner at first thought that respondent was not in touch with Meyada. Sometime in August, petitioner found out that Meyada was still e-mailing and calling him. Petitioner told respondent that he should cease contact with her, as suggested during the marital counseling, but respondent \u201cadmitted [Meyada] would keep calling and he would keep taking the calls.\u201d Petitioner would sometimes see Meyada\u2019s number on respondent\u2019s cell phone or see printed e-mails from her on the kitchen table. Petitioner would also sometimes be up with Azra early in the morning and see e-mails from Meyada\u2019s sister\u2019s account. The content revealed that they were really from Meyada.\nIn August or September 2004, respondent turned \u201cabusive\u201d and no longer cooperated in working on the marriage. Contrary to the marriage counselor\u2019s advice, respondent would not discuss the details of his business trips or who he was with or what he was doing. From September to November, respondent made nasty comments to petitioner and ignored and neglected her on the weekends. When she suggested something, he would \u201cshoot it down\u201d and say that she was not welcome to go anywhere with him. Respondent would call her and yell, saying that she was a lousy mother. On other occasions, he would call her evil and say that she was a liar and could \u201cgo fry in hell.\u201d Respondent\u2019s actions caused petitioner severe anxiety. Although she was still doing small, nice things for respondent, he was not cooperating. Petitioner asked respondent if he was still seeing Meyada, and he would reply, \u201cwhat difference does it make\u201d and \u201cyou have your little postnup now.\u201d Petitioner learned of the $5,000 check to Mehmood after the parties\u2019 checks started bouncing and she called the bank. Petitioner ended their marital counseling when she filed the petition for dissolution.\nRegarding her work history, petitioner testified that she had a bachelor\u2019s degree in accounting and had worked for about five years in Canada before getting married. She then worked for Mitsubishi until December 13, 2002, a few days before Azra was born. Petitioner was laid off during her maternity leave, and the parties made a joint decision for petitioner to stay at home for a while with Azra. Petitioner was in touch with several headhunters in fall 2003. She did not recall if she had interviewed for any positions from March through May 2004. Petitioner began working for R.R. Donnelly on September 21, 2004, as a senior financial analyst. Her yearly salary was $67,000.\nPetitioner was aware that respondent was receiving cash bonuses, because he would bring the money to her, and she would count the cash and keep it to pay household expenses. From 2001 to 2003, he received about $10,000 per year. In 2004, he received about $15,000. Petitioner admitted that the money was not declared on their joint income tax returns. The parties stipulated that they filed joint federal and state tax returns in 2001 and 2002, that petitioner filed separate returns in 2004 and 2005, and that respondent did not file any returns in 2004 and 2005.\nPetitioner had been making mortgage payments of $2,319 per month on the house since April 2005. Before that, the money was coming from the parties\u2019 joint account. Petitioner contributed about $20,000 to the down payment on the house, and the remainder came from respondent. The parties stipulated that they purchased their house for $434,000, plus $20,000 for extras. They further stipulated that as of the trial date, the house was worth $565,000 and was encumbered by a mortgage with a balance of $335,236.53.\nThe parties submitted written closing arguments, and on June 17, 2006, the trial court issued a letter ruling. As its findings are central to the issues contested on appeal, we summarize them in some detail. Regarding respondent\u2019s believability, the trial court stated that respondent\u2019s \u201clack of credibility taints and colors his testimony of finances.\u201d The trial court found that respondent had filled out his affidavit of expenses \u201cas if it were meaningless,\u201d received cash bonuses that he never reported as income, lacked credibility in his testimony regarding the \u201c \u2018Mexican transaction,\u2019 \u201d and had given \u201ccontrived\u201d testimony concerning his monthly medical bills. According to the trial court, respondent\u2019s \u201clack of candor and respect for the value of the oath preceding his testimony was obvious and frequent. Given his lack of candor during the discovery process, one can at least say his conduct was consistent.\u201d The trial court found that respondent\u2019s annual income exceeded the \u201c$58,000\u201d that respondent claimed and was at least $85,000.\nAs for petitioner\u2019s credibility, the trial court stated:\n\u201cThis is not to say [petitioner] was a paragon of veracity. As an accountant, her participation in failing to include cash bonuses in taxable income is particularly offensive. Likewise, the court rejects and discounts her testimony as to the circumstances surrounding the execution of the postnuptial agreement.\u201d\nOn the issue of the postmarital agreement, the trial court found, considering the parties\u2019 testimony and credibility, that the agreement was invalid because it lacked consideration and was otherwise unconscionable. The trial court stated:\n\u201cThe only \u2018consideration\u2019 for this alleged agreement was [petitioner\u2019s] promise to remain married. A mutual release of property rights provides sufficient consideration (Brosseau v. Brosseau (1998), 176 Ill. App. 3d 450) but here [petitioner] gave up no property rights. While the promise to marry may supply consideration in a pre-nuptial agreement, this \u2018agreement to remain married\u2019 is nothing more than past consideration. Furthermore, the court finds the agreement unconscionable, procedurally and substantively. The \u2018agreement\u2019 was reached (in fact, [respondent] agreed to [petitioner\u2019s] terms) while [petitioner] was in Canada with Azra, the implicit threat being that unless agreement was reached she and Azra would remain in Canada, reducing if not eliminating [respondent\u2019s] ability to meaningfully parent. After [respondent] agreed to [petitioner\u2019s] terms[,] she returned from Canada 2 days later, in essence proceeding directly to her lawyer\u2019s office for the execution of the written agreement. After the execution of the agreement [petitioner] begins to look for work, finds a well-paying job, and shortly after files for divorce, seeking to enforce the agreement. All of this occur [sic] within the context of the fiduciary relationship between husband and wife, and such a context requires that the agreement be scrutinized carefullyL] Bratton v. Bratton (2004), 136 S.W 3rd 95. The court therefore also finds the agreement is procedurally unconscionable. If two bases to find the agreement unenforceable are not enough, the court finds the agreement to be completely lacking in financial disclosures and substantively unconscionable for that reason.\u201d\nAfter designating specific assets and liabilities to the parties, the trial court stated that it was awarding petitioner $30,000 in ascertainable assets and awarding respondent less than $20,000. It also awarded petitioner 60% of the value of the marital residence and respondent 40% of the value. The trial court stated that it was awarding petitioner a disproportionate share of the marital residence because of the uncertainty of respondent\u2019s true income; the fact that his income was higher than petitioner\u2019s; the inability to determine respondent\u2019s dissipation, which \u201cclearly\u201d exceeded $5,000; and the inability to properly value American Pioneer and respondent\u2019s nonmarital estate. The trial court noted that if the house yielded the stipulated equity (fair market value minus the remaining mortgage), it would result in petitioner receiving about $137,858 and respondent receiving about $91,905. The trial court added that even if petitioner thought that this distribution was overly generous to respondent, there were additional equities to support the division, in that the evidence showed that respondent was responsible for the bulk of the down payment for and improvement to the residence.\nThe trial court did not award either party maintenance, finding that they were capable of supporting themselves. Finally, the trial court awarded petitioner $3,419 in attorney fees as a discovery sanction against respondent. The trial court incorporated its rulings into a judgment for dissolution of marriage, which it entered on July 27, 2006. Petitioner timely appealed.\nANALYSIS\nA. Postmarital Agreement\nPetitioner first argues that the trial court erred in ruling that the postmarital agreement was invalid based on a lack of consideration. Petitioner argues that her promise to reconcile and forgo filing a dissolution petition was valid consideration for obtaining the house in the event of a dissolution. Whether a contract contains consideration is a question of law (Russell v. Jim Russell Supply, Inc., 200 Ill. App. 3d 855, 861 (1990)), which we review de novo (Department of Transportation v. Lowderman, LLC, 367 Ill. App. 3d 502, 504 (2006)).\nThe basic requirements of a contract are an offer, an acceptance, and consideration. Melena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 219 Ill. 2d 135, 151 (2006). Consideration is defined as a bargained-for exchange of promises or performance. Tower Investors, LLC v. Ill East Chestnut Consultants, Inc., 371 Ill. App. 3d 1019, 1027 (2007). An act or promise that benefits one party or is a detriment to the other party is consideration sufficient to support a contract. Village of South Elgin v. Waste Management of Illinois, Inc., 348 Ill. App. 3d 929, 940 (2004). Relying on In re Estate of Brosseau, 176 Ill. App. 3d 450 (1988), respondent argues that the postmarital agreement lacked consideration because it did not contain a mutual release of property rights. However, we agree with petitioner that although the Brosseau court held that a mutual release of property rights is sufficient consideration to support a postmarital agreement (Brosseau, 176 Ill. App. 3d at 453), it did not hold that a mutual release of property rights is the only type of consideration on which a postmarital agreement may be based.\nOur supreme court held long ago that a wife\u2019s agreement to end her separation from her husband and dismiss her petition for divorce was consideration for her husband\u2019s promise to pay her a certain sum of money if he became drunk or mistreated or abused her again. Phillips v. Meyers, 82 Ill. 67, 70 (1876); cf. Wiegand v. Wiegand, 410 Ill. 533, 542-43 (1951) (wife\u2019s agreement to end a separation and return and live with her husband was not consideration for her husband\u2019s promise to pay her for doing so, because by returning to and living with her husband, the wife was only performing the duties contemplated by marriage); Litwin v. Litwin, 375 Ill. 90, 96 (1940) (wife\u2019s promise to dismiss a suit for separation and resume marital status was not consideration for husband\u2019s assignment of half the interest in a trust deed, because wife did not have any grounds for separating from her husband, the suit was not brought in good faith, and her promise to resume marital status was something she was already duty bound to do). Courts in other states have similarly held that there is valid consideration where an injured spouse receives something of value in exchange for her dismissal of a divorce suit and resumption of marital relations, because in dismissing the suit, the injured spouse is taking an action not compelled by law. See Adams v. Adams, 91 N.Y. 381, 383-84 (N.Y. App. 1883) (\u201cit would be a curious policy which should forbid husband and wife to compromise their differences, or preclude either from forgiving a wrong committed by the other\u201d); Darcey v. Darcey, 29 R.I. 384, 388-89, 71 A. 595, 597 (1909); McKay v. McKay, 189 S.W. 520 (Tex. App. 1916); see also Hanner v. Hanner, 95 Ariz. 191, 193, 388 P.2d 239, 241 (1964) (parties\u2019 agreement to discontinue divorce suit and resume marital relations was consideration to support their reconciliation agreement); Chew v. Chew, 38 Iowa 405 (1874). But cf. Marshall v. Marshall, 166 W. Va. 304, 308-09, 273 S.E.2d 360, 363 (1981) (husband\u2019s giving up a meritorious claim for divorce and reconciling was not consideration for his wife\u2019s transfer of property, because he filed for divorce after receiving the property and had lived with wife only intermittently in between).\nThe instant case is somewhat different from Phillips and the other cases cited, in that petitioner had neither separated from respondent nor filed her dissolution petition at the time the parties signed the postmarital agreement. Still, forbearance of bringing a legal action, even for a limited period of time, is a recognized form of consideration. See Tower Investors, 371 Ill. App. 3d at 1027-29. Forbearance of bringing or prosecuting a divorce action has been directly recognized as consideration in other states, and we find no compelling reason to deviate from these authorities. See Upton v. Ames & Webb, Inc., 179 Va. 219, 227, 18 S.E.2d 290, 293 (1942); Polson v. Stewart, 167 Mass. 211, 216-17, 45 N.E. 737, 739 (1897); Duffy v. White, 115 Mich. 264, 270-74, 73 N.W. 363, 365-66 (1897); compare Bratton v. Bratton, 136 S.W.3d 595, 603 (Tenn. 2004) (where parties were not having marital difficulties at the time they entered postnuptial agreement, it was not a reconciliation agreement, and wife\u2019s promise to remain in the marriage was not consideration), and Whitmore v. Whitmore, 8 A.D.3d 371, 372, 778 N.Y.S.2d 73, 75 (2004) (mere continuation of marriage was not adequate consideration for postnuptial agreement in which wife released claims on husband\u2019s property), with Gilley v. Gilley, 778 S.W.2d 862, 864 (Tenn. App. 1989) (where wife agreed not to prosecute a divorce action against her unfaithful husband in exchange for an agreement setting forth property distribution if the parties later divorced, wife supplied consideration, and court upheld agreement).\nWe recognize that in many of the aforementioned cases that found consideration in the forbearance of bringing or prosecuting a divorce, the parties were separated at the time they entered into the postmarital agreement. However, this is not the situation in all of the cases cited (see Poison, 167 Mass. 211, 45 N.E. 737), and we believe that this is a distinction without a difference under the facts of the instant case, because it is undisputed that petitioner and respondent were having marital difficulties when they signed the agreement. Moreover, while an Illinois dissolution based on irreconcilable differences requires that the parties have either lived separately for over two years or lived apart for at least six months and waive the two-year period, petitioner could have bypassed this requirement entirely by seeking a dissolution on the ground of adultery. See 750 ILCS 5/401(a) (West 2004). Therefore, to constitute consideration, it is not logical to require separation as a prerequisite for the forbearance of filing for divorce. But cf. Fisher v. Koontz, 110 Iowa 498, 504, 80 N.W 551, 553 (1899) (where there was no separation or pending action for divorce, wife\u2019s condoning of husband\u2019s cruel conduct was not consideration for alleged oral agreement to cancel prenuptial agreement, because the parties\u2019 \u201cadjustment of differences must be conclusively presumed to have sprung from mutual affection, the interests of home and children, and their well-being in society, and not to have been induced by greed of worldly gain\u201d).\nWe note that unlike in Tower Investors, in this case the agreement did not include a specific period of time in which petitioner would refrain from filing a dissolution petition. Where a contract does not specify a time for performance, a reasonable time will be implied. Rose v. Mavrakis, 343 Ill. App. 3d 1086, 1092 (2003). Similarly, an \u201cagreement to forbear need not be in express terms or for an exact period of time; the terms may be gathered from the surrounding circumstances from which forbearance for a reasonable time may be implied.\u201d First National Bank of Red Bud v. Chapman, 51 Ill. App. 3d 738, 742 (1977). The amount of time that constitutes a reasonable amount of time is a question of fact that depends on the particular circumstances of the case, and the trial court\u2019s finding will not be disturbed unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Wilmette Partners v. Hamel, 230 Ill. App. 3d 248, 257 (1992); Clay v. Harris, 228 Ill. App. 3d 475, 480-81 (1992). A finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence if the opposite conclusion is clear from the record or if the finding is unreasonable, arbitrary, and without a basis in the evidence. Lyon v. Department of Children & Family Services, 209 Ill. 2d 264, 271 (2004).\nHere, the parties signed the postmarital agreement on June 15, 2004, and petitioner filed for a dissolution on November 23, 2004. In commenting on this period of time, the trial court stated, \u201cAfter the execution of the agreement [petitioner] begins to look for work, finds a well-paying job, and shortly after files for divorce, seeking to enforce the agreement.\u201d This finding contributed to the trial court\u2019s ruling that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable. To the extent that this constitutes an implicit finding that petitioner did not wait a reasonable amount of time before filing for dissolution, we believe that the finding is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Petitioner waited over five months from the time the parties signed the post-marital agreement to the time she filed for dissolution. During that time, petitioner arranged for the parties to attend marital and sex counseling and took other steps to try to save the marriage. However, respondent admittedly still had contact with Meyada, the woman with whom he had an affair, and he unilaterally decided to send Mehmood a $5,000 check. According to petitioner, respondent also became verbally abusive and no longer tried to make the marriage work. Under these circumstances, a finding that petitioner did not forbear filing for a dissolution for a reasonable amount of time is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Therefore, we agree with petitioner that her forbearance of filing for a dissolution was consideration supporting the postmarital agreement.\nWe still need to address whether the postmarital agreement was unenforceable based on unconscionability. However, before turning to the merits of that issue, we must first resolve whether we may consider certain factual admissions made by respondent. Respondent\u2019s failure to respond to a request to admit facts related to the signing of the postmarital agreement resulted in the judicial admission of those facts. See 134 Ill. 2d R. 216(c); Moy v. Ng, 371 Ill. App. 3d 957, 960 (2007). However, respondent argues that petitioner waived the admissions because both parties presented evidence at trial regarding the circumstances surrounding the postmarital agreement. \u201c \u2018Where facts have been admitted pursuant to a Rule 216 request and the party presents evidence at trial to prove those facts, the admissions are waived and the party must rely on the strength of the evidence adduced at trial.\u2019 \u201d Hubeny v. Chairse, 305 Ill. App. 3d 1038, 1044 (1999), quoting Magee v. Walbro, Inc., 171 Ill. App. 3d 774, 780 (1988).\nAs petitioner points out, there were only three admissions for which controverted testimony was arguably presented at trial: (1) that respondent \u201cvoluntarily signed\u201d the postmarital agreement; (2) that he was \u201cnot forced in any way to sign\u201d the agreement; and (3) that he \u201cbelieved the terms were fair\u201d when he signed the agreement. Petitioner argues that it was only after respondent\u2019s attorney first elicited testimony regarding respondent\u2019s feelings during the post-marital negotiations and agreement-signing that her attorney cross-examined respondent on the subject. However, testimony brought on cross-examination can still waive the right to rely on admissions. See Rowe v. State Bank of Lombard, 247 Ill. App. 3d 686, 696 (1993); People v. Mindham, 253 Ill. App. 3d 792, 795 (1993). Petitioner also argues that it would be unjust to apply waiver when the trial court refused to rule on her motion in limine, presented at the start of trial, that related to the facts deemed admitted. The trial court stated, \u201cI thought I already ruled on that, you know. If they\u2019re not denied, then they\u2019re admitted. If they\u2019re not timely denied, then they\u2019re admitted. If they are facts so [sic].\u201d In light of the fact that petitioner\u2019s counsel commented, before introducing the motion, that she was \u201cnot exactly sure that it\u2019s even needed,\u201d and the fact that the motion in limine is not in the record, it is not unjust to apply waiver here. See Foutch v. O\u2019Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92 (1984) (it is the appellant\u2019s burden to provide a sufficiently complete record of trial proceedings to support a claim of error, and the reviewing court will resolve any doubts that arise from the incompleteness of the record against the appellant). Accordingly, petitioner waived the three aforementioned admissions and may not now rely on them.\nWe now return to the issue of whether the postmarital agreement was unconscionable. A trial court may make a finding of unconscionability based on procedural unconscionability, substantive unconscionability, or some combination of the two. Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless, LLC, 223 Ill. 2d 1, 21 (2006). A contract is procedurally unconscionable if an impropriety in the process of forming the contract deprived a party of a meaningful choice. Kinkel, 223 Ill. 2d at 23. The trial court found that the postmarital agreement was procedurally unconscionable largely on the basis that petitioner was in Canada with Azra while the parties were negotiating the terms of the post-marital agreement, \u201cthe implicit threat being that unless agreement was reached she and Azra would remain in Canada, reducing if not eliminating [respondent\u2019s] ability to meaningfully parent.\u201d This statement equates to a finding that respondent was under duress during the negotiation of the agreement. Duress may make an agreement between spouses unconscionable. In re Marriage of Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d 1067, 1082 (1992). Duress can consist of oppression, undue influence, or taking undue advantage of another\u2019s stress to the point where that person is deprived of the exercise of free will (Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1082); duress and coercion have basically the same meaning (Crossroads Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Sterling Truck Corp., 341 Ill. App. 3d 438, 446 (2003)). Acts or threats must be legally or morally wrongful to constitute duress (In re Marriage of Barnes, 324 Ill. App. 3d 514, 519 (2001)), and duress is measured by an objective test, rather than a subjective one (Allen v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, 285 Ill. App. 3d 1031, 1035 (1996)). \u201cThe person asserting duress has the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was bereft of the quality of mind essential to the making of the contract.\u201d In re Marriage of HammSmith, 261 Ill. App. 3d 209, 215 (1994). We review a trial court\u2019s finding of duress under a manifest weight of the evidence standard. Wermers Floorcovering, Inc. v. Santanna Natural Gas Corp., 342 Ill. App. 3d 222, 224 (2003).\nRichardson is an example of a case in which the appellate court found a postmarital agreement procedurally unconscionable due to duress. Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1082. There, the wife was not represented by counsel during the initial drafts of the postmarital agreement. Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1071. The husband\u2019s attorney later obtained a matrimonial attorney to represent the wife, but after that attorney advised the wife not to sign the agreement, the husband had his attorney obtain a new attorney for the wife. Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1081. The new attorney was a former associate at the firm of the husband\u2019s attorney, had very little experience in matrimonial law, and was not aware that the wife had previously been represented by other counsel. The new attorney never met with the wife or sent her any documents (Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1081-82), and the wife first saw the postmarital agreement at the meeting where she signed it (Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1074). The meeting occurred one week after the death of the wife\u2019s father, and there was testimony that his illness and death had made her very emotional. Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1081. The wife testified that she had thought that the meeting was just to exchange property titles, and she did not know why she had to sign the postmarital agreement so soon after her father\u2019s death. Although there was conflicting testimony regarding whether the wife cried at that meeting, it was clear that she was crying and distraught at a meeting that had occurred just 10 days earlier. Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1082.\nIn contrast to Richardson, we conclude that under the facts of this case, a finding of procedural unconscionability based on duress is against the manifest weight of the evidence. In arriving at this conclusion, we are cognizant of the trial court\u2019s finding that petitioner\u2019s testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the execution of the postmarital agreement was not credible. Still, our determination equally holds true under respondent\u2019s version of the facts. Although respondent testified that he was feeling afraid, panicky, depressed, vulnerable, and uncertain when petitioner was in Canada with Azra and they were negotiating the terms of the postmarital agreement, he also testified that he was represented by counsel regarding the agreement and that the parties made changes to the agreement between the first draft and the version that they ultimately signed. Respondent was apparently satisfied with his representation, for he initially hired the same firm to represent him in the dissolution proceedings. Respondent\u2019s access to and use of independent counsel during the formation and execution of the agreement is readily distinguishable from the wife\u2019s situation in Richardson. Furthermore, although respondent agreed to sign the postmarital agreement while petitioner was still in Canada, he did not actually sign it until two days after she had returned with Azra. Where the parties to a contract do not intend to be bound to the agreement until it is signed, the agreement is not binding until both parties sign it. 17 C.J.S. Contracts \u00a775 (2007). Respondent testified that he was feeling very vulnerable when he signed the agreement and was concerned that petitioner would \u201ctake off\u2019 with Azra. However, if respondent thought that petitioner was a flight risk and simply wanted to prevent her from leaving the country with Azra without his permission, he could have applied for a restraining order. Given that petitioner was in the United States with Azra when respondent ultimately signed the postmarital agreement, and that he was represented by independent counsel during the entire process, a finding of procedural unconscionability predicated on duress is against the manifest weight of the evidence.\nWe next examine whether the postmarital agreement was substantively unconscionable. Substantive unconscionability is based on the fairness and obligations of the contract\u2019s terms, and it can be shown by \u201c \u2018contract terms so one-sided as to oppress or unfairly surprise an innocent party, an overall imbalance in the obligations and rights imposed by the bargain, and significant cost-price disparity.\u2019 \u201d Kinkel, 223 Ill. 2d at 28, quoting Maxwell v. Fidelity Financial Services, Inc., 184 Ariz. 82, 89, 907 P.2d 51, 58 (1995); see also Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1080 (unconscionable terms have been defined as being improvident, completely one-sided, and oppressive). We review this issue de novo. Kinkel, 223 Ill. 2d at 22. However, to the extent that we consider factual findings in our analysis, we will use a manifest weight of the evidence standard. See Best v. Best, 223 Ill. 2d 342, 350-51 (2006) (factual findings reviewed under manifest weight of the evidence standard).\nThe trial court found that the postmarital agreement was substantively unconscionable because it was \u201ccompletely lacking in financial disclosures.\u201d We note that premarital agreements may be invalidated if they are unconscionable at the time of signing and, before the signing, the party seeking to avoid the agreement: (1) was not provided with appropriate financial disclosures; (2) did not make a written waiver of the right to financial disclosures beyond those provided; and (3) either did not have or reasonably could not have had sufficient knowledge of the other party\u2019s financial situation. 750 ILCS 10/7(a)(2) (West 2006). We question whether financial disclosures are required in postmarital reconciliation agreements. Cf. In re Marriage of Burkle, 139 Cal. App. 4th 712, 746, 43 Cal. Rptr. 3d 181, 208 (2006) (statutes requiring financial disclosures before parties to dissolutions agreed to resolve property issues did not apply to postmarital agreements that contemplated reconciliation and were not executed in contemplation of imminent divorce). In any event, we conclude that the lack of such disclosures would not invalidate the agreement here, because the postmarital agreement states that the parties were sufficiently aware of each other\u2019s assets and liabilities and expressly waived any right to further disclosure of assets and liabilities and because respondent, against whom the agreement is sought to be enforced, admitted that he did not subsequently learn anything new about petitioner\u2019s assets.\nCourts examining whether postmarital agreements are substantively unconscionable have focused on the parties\u2019 economic circumstances immediately following and resulting from the agreement. See Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1080. Here, the parties stated in the postmarital agreement that the house had an estimated fair market value of $450,000 and an outstanding mortgage of about $350,000. Accordingly, the parties had about $100,000 in equity. By giving up his share of the marital home, respondent was therefore relinquishing his right to $50,000 in equity when he signed the agreement. By further agreeing that the home \u201cshall not be considered in determining the Wife\u2019s assets, income or expenses for purposes of determining the percentage or portion of the marital estate that either party is to receive,\u201d respondent also lost the right to have the home\u2019s value considered as an asset of petitioner in the overall distribution of the marital estate.\nThe trial court found that respondent\u2019s testimony regarding his finances was not credible and that it could not properly value American Pioneer and respondent\u2019s nonmarital estate. The trial court further found that respondent\u2019s annual income was at least $85,000 and that his \u201ctrue income [was] undoubtedly higher than\u201d petitioner\u2019s. We agree with petitioner that by not providing credible evidence of his own economic circumstances, respondent could not establish the parties\u2019 relative economic circumstances or that the postmarital agreement was substantively unconscionable. The evidence before the trial court actually indicated the contrary. Accordingly, the trial court erred in ruling that the postmarital agreement was substantively unconscionable. Cf. Richardson, 237 Ill. App. 3d at 1083 (postmarital agreement unconscionable because, among other things, it awarded wife only 7.55% of assets listed on balance sheet).\nBased on our determinations that the postmarital agreement contained valid consideration and was neither procedurally nor substantively unconscionable, it follows that the trial court erred by refusing to enforce the agreement. Accordingly, we remand this case to the trial court so that it may give effect to the agreement. As this requires awarding the marital home to petitioner as nonmarital property, the trial court must necessarily redistribute the remainder of the marital estate.\nB. Dissipation\nPetitioner next argues that the trial court erred by limiting its\nspecific finding of dissipation to $5,000. Dissipation is a spouse\u2019s use of marital property for his or her own benefit, for a purpose unrelated to the marriage, during a time when the marriage is suffering from an irreconcilable breakdown. In re Marriage of Hubbs, 363 Ill. App. 3d 696, 700 (2006). The question of whether a spouse has dissipated marital assets depends on the facts of the case. Hubbs, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 700. Once & prima facie case of dissipation is made, the charged spouse has the burden of showing, by clear and convincing evidence, how the marital funds were spent. In re Marriage of Murphy, 259 Ill. App. 3d 336, 339 (1994); see also In re Marriage of Manker, 375 Ill. App. 3d 465, 477 (2007). If the spouse fails to meet this burden, the trial court is required to find dissipation. Hubbs, 363 Ill. App. 3d at 701-02. We review a trial court\u2019s factual findings on dissipation under the manifest weight of the evidence standard, though we review its final property distribution under an abuse of discretion standard. In re Marriage of Vancura, 356 Ill. App. 3d 200, 205 (2005). To the extent that petitioner is arguing that the trial court was required to state an exact dollar amount of dissipation, she is raising a question of law, which we review de novo. See Lowderman, LLC, 367 Ill. App. 3d at 504 (questions of law reviewed de novo).\nPetitioner argues that in addition to the $5,000 dissipation for the check written to Mehmood, the trial court should have found that respondent dissipated marital assets in the amount of $18,000 for vacations and $5,400 for medical expenses. At trial, respondent was questioned in regard to his comprehensive financial statement. He had listed $200 per month for medical expenses after insurance, and he testified that those represented costs for Viagra and drugs for a rash that he had. Respondent had also listed $1,000 per month for vacation expenses, and he testified that he had been taking trips with his girlfriend. In petitioner\u2019s written closing arguments, she argued that respondent\u2019s $1,000 per month in vacations for 18 months equaled $18,000 and that $200 per month for medical expenses equaled $3,600. We therefore will assume that the $5,400 in dissipation for medical expenses that petitioner claims on appeal is a scrivener\u2019s error. See also In re Stephen K., 373 Ill. App. 3d 7, 25 (2007) (party is estopped from taking a position on appeal that is inconsistent with that taken in trial court).\nThe trial court found that it was unable to \u201caccurately calculate respondent\u2019s dissipation which is clearly larger than $5,000.\u201d Based on this dissipation, as well as other factors, the trial court awarded petitioner a disproportionate share of the marital home. A trial court is not required to list what conduct constituted dissipation and how it arrived at a particular dollar amount. In re Marriage of Dunseth, 260\nIll. App. 3d 816, 831 (1994). Furthermore, the trial court is not required to award the other spouse cash or property equal to half of the amount dissipated. In re Marriage of Jerome, 255 Ill. App. 3d 374, 394 (1994). Even more, it is not required to directly charge the dissipated amount against the party\u2019s share of the estate. Murphy, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 340-41 (where dissipation of $7,800 did not materially affect the division of property, trial court did not abuse its discretion by not charging that amount against the husband\u2019s share of marital property). Petitioner does not cite, nor does our research reveal, any authority requiring that the trial court state an exact amount of dissipation. In the context of the distribution of the marital estate, the trial court is not required to put a particular value on each marital asset when determining the value of the property to be distributed to each spouse. In re Marriage of McHenry, 292 Ill. App. 3d 634, 638 (1997). Rather, it is necessary only that the trial court consider the value of the property distributed to each spouse and that there is sufficient evidence of value in the record to allow for review of the trial court\u2019s distribution. McHenry, 292 Ill. App. 3d at 638. In light of the fact that petitioner claimed specific amounts of dissipation, that the trial court found that respondent\u2019s dissipation exceeded $5,000, and that the trial court awarded petitioner a larger share of the marital home in part because of the dissipation, we conclude that the record allows us to fully review the trial court\u2019s award and that it was not required to list a more specific amount of dissipation.\nWe further conclude that the trial court\u2019s finding that respondent\u2019s dissipation totaled over $5,000 is not against the manifest weight of the evidence. It is undisputed that respondent wrote Mehmood a $5,000 check from the parties\u2019 joint account. Respondent also testified that he had $1,000 per month of expenses for vacations taken with his girlfriend, and this type of expenditure has been held to constitute dissipation. See Murphy, 259 Ill. App. 3d at 339; In re Marriage of Osborn, 206 Ill. App. 3d 588, 600-01 (1990). On remand, the trial court will have to account for respondent\u2019s dissipation in a manner that does not include a larger share of the parties\u2019 home, as we have determined that the home should be considered petitioner\u2019s nonmarital asset.\nPetitioner further argues that the trial court erred in the amount of weight it gave to various factors in its division of marital assets. Respondent argues that petitioner has waived this argument by failing to cite any legal authority on this issue. See Vine Street Clinic v. HealthLink, Inc., 222 Ill. 2d 276, 301 (2006) (failure to cite to relevant authority violates Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) (210 Ill. 2d R. 341(h)(7)) and results in forfeiture of the argument). While we believe that petitioner has cited sufficient authority to preserve her argument, we do not address it because the trial court will be reapportioning the marital assets on remand.\nThe material in section C., regarding attorney fees, is nonpublishable under Supreme Court Rule 23.\nII. CONCLUSION\nTo review, we have concluded that the Du Page County circuit court erred by ruling that the postmarital agreement was invalid. We therefore reverse this ruling and remand the cause to the circuit court to give effect to the agreement and reapportion the remainder of the marital estate, keeping in mind the need to account for respondent\u2019s dissipation. We affirm the circuit court\u2019s award of attorney fees.\nAffirmed in part and reversed in part; cause remanded.\nO\u2019MALLEY and ZENOFF, JJ., concur.\nAs we later discuss, the manifest weight of the evidence standard also comes into play in ultimately resolving the issue of whether the contract was enforceable.\nAlthough the trial court also noted that petitioner later obtained a job and filed for dissolution, these do not directly support a finding of procedural unconscionability, as they do not relate to the contract\u2019s formation.\nWhere procedural unconscionability is based on contract terms and the disparity of bargaining power between the contract\u2019s drafter and the party claiming unconscionability, the issue is reviewed de novo. See Kinkel, 223 Ill. 2d at 22. However, because the procedural unconscionability in this case rests on the issue of duress, we use the manifest weight standard.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE BOWMAN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Jonathan G. Anderson, of Anderson & Associates, P.C., of Schaumburg, and Robin M. Zandri, Christopher J. Mauer, and Robert J. Bozsko, all of Anderson & Associates, P.C., of Wheaton, for appellant.", "Natalie M. Stec, of Wolfe & Stec, Ltd., of Woodridge, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF OZMA TABASSUM, Petitioner-Appellant, and JAVED YOUNIS, Respondent-Appellee.\nSecond District\nNo. 2\u201406\u20140843\nOpinion filed December 7, 2007.\nRehearing denied January 17, 2008.\nJonathan G. Anderson, of Anderson & Associates, P.C., of Schaumburg, and Robin M. Zandri, Christopher J. Mauer, and Robert J. Bozsko, all of Anderson & Associates, P.C., of Wheaton, for appellant.\nNatalie M. Stec, of Wolfe & Stec, Ltd., of Woodridge, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0761-01", "first_page_order": 777, "last_page_order": 797 }