In re Marriage of McLean, 2025 IL App (5th) 250094

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of McLean, 2025 IL App (5th) 250094 - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: In the Illinois appellate court case "In re Marriage of McLean," the Fifth District handed down an opinion that serves as a masterclass for family law practitioners on how to properly divide retirement accounts and allocate parenting time, emphasizing the importance of forensic accounting methodologies and evidentiary record-building. The court's decision is seen as a game-changer in high-asset Illinois divorces, where superior documentation can control the outcome, and practitioners are advised to build their records with surgical precision and exploit their opponents' vulnerabilities.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet. In In re Marriage of McLean, the Fifth District handed Illinois family law practitioners a masterclass in what happens when retirement account division gets sloppy and when parenting allocation arguments lack evidentiary teeth. If you're litigating high-asset divorces or custody disputes, this opinion is your new playbook.

The McLean Decision: What the Court Actually Said

The appellate court did something rare here: it affirmed the parenting allocation while simultaneously vacating the retirement division and sending it back for recalculation. That split outcome tells you everything about where trial courts get it right—and where they catastrophically fail.

On the 401(k) accounts, the trial court couldn't demonstrate a coherent methodology for separating marital from nonmarital portions. The appellate panel found that valuation dates, post-separation contributions, employer matches, rollovers, and investment gains were either improperly attributed or unsupported by the record. Translation: the trial court winged it, and the Fifth District wasn't having it.

On parenting time, the court applied the deferential standard we know well—manifest weight of the evidence for factual findings, abuse of discretion for the allocation itself. Even with contested compliance issues, dueling expert reports, and incidents between the parties, the appellate court found sufficient evidentiary support. The trial judge made credibility calls. Those calls held.

Retirement Division: The Forensic Imperative

Here's where most practitioners lose cases before trial even begins: they treat retirement accounts like simple bank balances. They're not. A 401(k) with twenty years of contributions, employer matches, rollovers from prior plans, and market fluctuations is a forensic accounting problem masquerading as a line item on a financial disclosure.

The coverture fraction isn't optional—it's mandatory methodology. You need to establish:


The account balance at date of marriage (or rollover date, if applicable)
Pre-marital contributions and their proportional growth
Marital contributions, employer matches, and their proportional growth
Post-separation contributions and growth (which are nonmarital in Illinois)
The agreed-upon valuation date


McLean failed because the trial court couldn't show its work. The appellate panel demanded explicit findings and calculation steps. If your judgment doesn't include a documented methodology, you're handing opposing counsel an appeal on a silver platter.

The Digital Discovery Angle

This is where cyber-forensics becomes family law leverage. Employer HR portals, 401(k) administrator records, and payroll systems contain granular contribution histories that most practitioners never subpoena. Your opponent's spouse claiming they can't produce historical statements? Their employer's HRIS system has every contribution, every match, every rebalancing transaction timestamped and logged.

Subpoena the plan administrator directly. Demand the complete transaction history, not just quarterly statements. If there's been a rollover from a prior employer's plan, trace that lineage. Every dollar has a paper trail—or more accurately, a digital trail that your opponent hopes you won't follow.

Parenting Allocation: Why Deference Cuts Both Ways

The McLean parenting outcome should comfort trial practitioners and terrify appellate hopefuls. The Fifth District gave the trial court substantial latitude on credibility assessments, evaluator recommendations, and the weight assigned to school counselor concerns. Contested facts about compliance with temporary orders didn't move the needle.

The strategic lesson: if you're trying the case, build your record around the statutory best-interest factors with surgical precision. If you're appealing, understand that you're fighting uphill against a deferential standard that assumes the trial judge saw something you didn't.

What works on appeal? Demonstrating that the trial court ignored uncontroverted evidence, misapplied the statutory factors, or reached a conclusion that no reasonable jurist could reach. What doesn't work? Relitigating credibility calls or asking the appellate court to reweigh competing expert opinions.

The Technology Factor in Parenting Disputes

Modern custody litigation increasingly involves digital evidence that parents don't realize they're generating. Co-parenting app communications, GPS data from shared family plans, social media posts with metadata, smart home device logs showing who was present and when—this evidence either corroborates or destroys testimony about parenting time compliance.

If your client is the responsible parent, preserve everything. If opposing counsel's client has been posting Instagram stories from Vegas during their scheduled parenting time, that metadata doesn't lie. The trial court's credibility assessment becomes much easier when you hand the judge timestamped proof.

Practice Directives: What McLean Demands

For retirement division:


Obtain complete account histories from day one of the account, not just the marriage
Document every rollover with source account information
Separate employer matches from employee contributions
Establish the valuation date in writing before trial
Retain a forensic accountant or actuary for complex accounts
Draft proposed findings that show the calculation methodology step-by-step


For parenting allocation:


Build testimony around each statutory best-interest factor
Preserve digital evidence of parenting time compliance (or violations)
Prepare your client for credibility scrutiny—consistency matters
If using evaluators, ensure their methodology is documented and defensible
Create a record that survives deferential review


The Leverage Calculation

McLean represents a broader truth in high-asset Illinois divorces: the party with superior documentation controls the outcome. Retirement accounts aren't divided based on equity or fairness arguments—they're divided based on traceable contributions and defensible calculations. Parenting time isn't allocated based on who tells a more sympathetic story—it's allocated based on who builds an evidentiary record that survives appellate scrutiny.

Your opposition is likely unprepared for the forensic depth this case demands. They're hoping you'll accept surface-level disclosures and stipulate to rough estimates. That's their vulnerability.

Exploit it.

If you're facing a complex retirement division or high-conflict custody dispute in Illinois, the time to build your evidentiary foundation is now—not the week before trial. Schedule a strategy consultation with our team to assess your case architecture and identify the pressure points your opposition hasn't anticipated.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.