In re Marriage of May

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of May - The article analyzes the Illinois appellate case In re Marriage of May, in which a spouse's dissipation claims were entirely barred because her notice failed to include the statutorily required date when the marriage irretrievably broke down—a requirement the court held to be mandatory, not directory. The piece emphasizes that in high-asset divorces, procedural precision is critical, and failure to comply with statutory notice requirements can result in complete forfeiture of otherwise valid claims.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and they don't even know it yet.

If you're navigating a high-asset divorce in Illinois and your spouse is throwing around dissipation claims like confetti, pay close attention. The First District Appellate Court just handed down a ruling that reinforces what seasoned practitioners have known for years: procedural precision isn't optional—it's the entire game.

In In re Marriage of May, the appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision to completely bar a spouse's dissipation claims because she failed to include a single critical element in her notice: the date the marriage irretrievably broke down.

That's not a technicality. That's the whole ballgame.

What Happened in In re Marriage of May

Patrick May filed for dissolution in October 2018. His wife Mary filed a counter-petition the following month. Both pleadings alleged irreconcilable differences—but neither specified when the marriage had actually broken down.

Mary later filed a notice of intent to claim dissipation, seeking to hold Patrick accountable for allegedly wasting marital assets. She amended that notice. But here's where she made a fatal error: she never identified a specific breakdown date.

Patrick's counsel filed a motion in limine before trial, arguing that without a breakdown date, he couldn't adequately defend against the dissipation allegations. The trial court agreed and barred Mary's claims entirely.

Mary failed to make an offer of proof at trial. She sought reconsideration after the dissolution judgment was entered. Denied. She appealed. The First District affirmed.

Game over.

Why the Breakdown Date Matters

Under Illinois law, dissipation refers to the use of marital property for purposes unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage is undergoing an irretrievable breakdown. The statutory framework requires the claiming spouse to provide notice that includes, among other things, the date on which the marriage began its irretrievable breakdown.

This isn't bureaucratic box-checking. The breakdown date establishes the temporal boundary for dissipation claims. Without it, the opposing party cannot meaningfully prepare a defense. Without it, the court cannot determine which expenditures are even subject to scrutiny.

The appellate court in May held that this requirement is mandatory, not directory. Mary argued that Patrick waived any objection by responding to her notices without challenging them. The court rejected that argument. She also argued the statutory language should be interpreted loosely. The court rejected that too.

The statute means what it says. And what it says is: include the date or lose your claim.

Strategic Implications for High-Net-Worth Cases

If you're the spouse defending against dissipation allegations, this case is a roadmap. Your opposition's notice is either compliant or it isn't. If they've failed to specify a breakdown date, you file that motion in limine and you file it early. You don't wait for trial. You don't assume the court will overlook the deficiency. You force the issue.

If you're the spouse asserting dissipation, this case is a warning shot. Your notice must be airtight. The breakdown date must be specific, supportable, and strategically selected. Too early, and you expand the window for scrutiny of your own spending. Too late, and you've potentially waived claims against legitimate marital waste.

This is where high-stakes divorce diverges from the routine dissolution. In cases involving substantial assets—business interests, investment portfolios, real estate holdings, deferred compensation—the dissipation analysis can involve hundreds of thousands of dollars. A procedural misstep doesn't just weaken your position. It eliminates your claim entirely.

The Tech Angle: Digital Discovery and Dissipation

Modern dissipation claims increasingly depend on digital evidence. Bank records, credit card statements, cryptocurrency transactions, subscription services, app-based purchases—the forensic trail is longer and more detailed than ever before.

But here's what most practitioners miss: cyber negligence is leverage in discovery. If your spouse has been sloppy with digital security—shared passwords, unencrypted communications, cloud storage accessible to both parties—that data may be fair game. If they've attempted to delete transaction histories or hide accounts, that conduct itself may constitute dissipation or evidence of fraud on the court.

The intersection of family law and cybersecurity isn't theoretical. It's happening in discovery disputes across Cook County right now. If your counsel isn't thinking about digital forensics as a core component of asset tracing, you're already behind.

Practical Guidance: Protecting Your Position

If you're asserting dissipation:

Identify the breakdown date with specificity. Anchor it to a concrete event—separation, filing, discovery of misconduct.
Ensure your notice complies with every statutory requirement. Review it twice. Have co-counsel review it.
Prepare your evidence before you file. If you can't support the claim, don't make it.


If you're defending against dissipation:

Scrutinize the opposing party's notice immediately. Challenge deficiencies before trial, not after.
File motions in limine aggressively. The May court rewarded early, decisive action.
Document your own expenditures. Assume everything will be examined. Prepare accordingly.


The Bigger Picture: Procedural Discipline Wins Cases

The May decision isn't groundbreaking law. It's a reaffirmation of principles that should govern every high-conflict dissolution: deadlines matter, statutory requirements are enforced, and procedural failures have consequences.

Mary May lost her dissipation claims not because the merits were weak—we don't know what the merits were. She lost because she didn't follow the rules. Her counsel didn't cure the deficiency. She didn't make an offer of proof at trial. By the time she sought reconsideration, it was too late.

In high-net-worth divorce, you don't get second chances. You get one shot to preserve your claims, one shot to exclude your opponent's evidence, one shot to frame the narrative before the court. Miss that window, and you're playing defense for the rest of the case.

Your Next Move

If you're facing a complex dissolution in Illinois—whether you're asserting dissipation or defending against it—the time to act is now. Not after discovery closes. Not after your spouse's counsel files their motion. Now.

The judge already knows who's prepared and who's scrambling. Make sure you're on the right side of that divide.

Book a consultation today. Your opposition is already losing—they just don't know it yet.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.