¶ 34 On appeal, Jeffrey argues that the circuit erred in denying his section 2–1401 motion to vacate the marital settlement agreement as unconscionable. “The purpose of a section 2–1401 petition is for a party to bring to the court's attention facts that, if known to it at the time it rendered [its] judgment, would have changed the court's determination.” In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 29, 376 Ill.Dec. 144, 998 N.E.2d 686 ; see also In re Marriage of Roepenack, 2012 IL App (3d) 110198, ¶ 30, 359 Ill.Dec. 336, 966 N.E.2d 1024 ; In re Marriage of Hamm–Smith, 261 Ill.App.3d 209, 214, 198 Ill.Dec. 763, 633 N.E.2d 225 (1994). To obtain relief under section 2–1401, a petitioner must allege specific facts supporting: (1) the existence of a meritorious claim or defense; (2) due diligence in presenting this claim or defense to the circuit court in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2–1401 petition.

time it rendered its judgment, would have changed the court's determination." In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 29.¶ 47 To receive relief under section 2-1401, a petitioner must affirmatively allege specific facts supporting the following elements: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting the defense or claim in the original action; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition.

In re Marriage of Smith, 2012 IL App (2d) 110522, ¶ 46. A court abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 32. ¶ 32 i. Zena's Earning Capacity

"Procedural unconscionability refers to a situation where a term is so difficult to find, read, or understand that the plaintiff cannot fairly be said to have been aware he was agreeing to it, and also takes into account a lack of bargaining power." Id. at 100; In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 30. "Substantive unconscionability refers to those terms which are inordinately one-sided in one party's favor." Razor, 222 Ill.2d at 100.

On October 28, 2013, the Second District affirmed the circuit court's judgment. In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639. ¶ 3 On October 15, 2015, Arjmand filed a pro se verified complaint in Cook County circuit court for attorney malpractice against Mirabelli, as well as Nadler Pritikin & Mirabelli, LLC (the Nadler firm), and Beermann Pritikin Mirabelli Swerdlove, LLP (the Beermann firm), the two law firms with which Mirabelli was associated during his representation of Arjmand (collectively, defendants).

However, "[t]he trial court is in the best position to judge the credibility of the witnesses and resolve conflicts in the evidence." In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 35, 998 N.E.2d 686. Here, the court found Cummings more credible than Chavez, and it was in the best position to consider the photos, documents, and testimony in making its decision.

"To present a claim for relief under section 2-1401, the petitioner must set forth allegations supporting: (1) the existence of a meritorious defense or claim; (2) due diligence in presenting the defense or claim in the original proceedings; and (3) due diligence in filing the section 2-1401 petition." In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 29. "Relief under section 2-1401 is available to set aside a marital settlement agreement that is unconscionable or was entered into as a result of duress, coercion, or fraud." Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 29. ¶ 18 A motion to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(9) of the Code admits the legal sufficiency of the complaint but asserts some "affirmative matter" as a defense.

In re Marriage of Brankin, 2012 IL App (2d) 110203, ¶ 10. A reviewing court will not disturb a maintenance award absent an abuse of discretion, which occurs when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 32.¶ 28 The record reveals that the trial court reasonably and appropriately considered the section 504(a) factors in addressing the issue of maintenance.

A court abuses its discretion when no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court. In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 32. ¶ 66 Carl contends that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that he refused to secure "meaningful employment" and that his behavior "was a deliberate effort to discourage Katie from seeking a divorce and gaining custody of the children." Carl maintains that he is "gainfully employed" at Follow Your Nose and that he took the job so that, if he were awarded custody, he could spend more time with the children while also providing for them financially. ¶ 67 The evidence at trial established that Carl has a master's degree in theology and worked for 10 years as the director of religious education at a parish in Elmhurst, Illinois.

Cf. In re Marriage of Arjmand, 2013 IL App (2d) 120639, ¶ 43, 376 Ill.Dec. 144, 998 N.E.2d 686 (no evidence the husband intended to keep his nonmarital assets separate as the wife's name was on most, if not all, of the personal and business checking accounts). In addition, the fact the Chase checking account and Scottrade account were held in James's name alone, along with James's testimony that he never intended Yvonne to receive his nonmarital inheritance income, demonstrates James's intent to use the Chase checking account as a conduit for his nonmarital inheritance income.