In re Marriage of Nasson, 2025 IL App (1st) 230951-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Nasson, 2025 IL App (1st) 230951-U - In re Marriage of Nasson reinforces that credibility findings at trial create cascading consequences—once the court deemed Steven's testimony "evasive," his $80,000 self-valuation of a business interest collapsed against expert testimony establishing $800,000, and his dissipation defenses failed for lack of forensic documentation. The case also delivers a sharp reminder on appellate preservation: Steven's failure to raise specific objections to attorney-fee procedures at trial resulted in outright forfeiture, regardless of whether the trial court's sequencing was technically improper.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and In re Marriage of Nasson just handed you the playbook to keep them there.

The First District's June 2025 Rule 23 order in In re Marriage of Nasson, 2025 IL App (1st) 230951-U, is a masterclass in what happens when a high-net-worth spouse tries to play fast and loose with business valuations, dissipation claims, and procedural objections. Spoiler: the appellate court wasn't impressed. Neither was the trial court. And if you're sitting across the table from someone attempting similar maneuvers, you now have fresh ammunition.

The Setup: When "Evasive" Becomes a Legal Finding

Steven Nasson held a 40% interest in a company called Turf. His position at trial? That his final distribution of $80,000 represented the full value of his stake. The trial court's response was surgical: it credited expert testimony valuing that same interest at $800,000 and found Steven's testimony "evasive and not credible."

That credibility determination wasn't just commentary—it became the foundation for both the valuation and the dissipation findings that followed. When a court tags your client as evasive, every subsequent factual dispute tilts against them. This is why I tell clients before depositions: the judge is already taking notes on your demeanor before you finish your first answer.

Dissipation: The $29,200 Lesson in Forensic Tracing

Jessica Nasson filed a dissipation notice claiming approximately $234,000 in marital waste. Most of it didn't stick—but the $29,200.25 that did tells you everything about how these claims survive appellate review.

The trial court required reimbursement from Steven's nonmarital funds, including a specific $4,245.63 charge on an American Express card. That level of granularity doesn't happen by accident. It happens when one side brings forensic tracing and the other side brings excuses.

If you're defending a dissipation claim, you need contemporaneous documentation showing where every dollar went and why it benefited the marriage. If you're prosecuting one, you need a forensic accountant who can follow the money through every shell company, credit card, and crypto wallet your spouse thought was invisible.

Cyber negligence is leverage in discovery. When a spouse commingles funds through poorly secured accounts, uses shared devices for financial transactions, or leaves a digital trail they thought was deleted, that data becomes Exhibit A. I've seen entire dissipation defenses collapse because someone forgot their iCloud syncs across devices.

The 60/40 Split: When "Unequal" Is Entirely Appropriate

The trial court divided the marital estate 60% to Jessica, 40% to Steven. The appellate court affirmed without hesitation.

Under Illinois law, courts consider the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/503(d) when dividing marital property—including each party's contribution to the acquisition of assets, the value of nonmarital property, and the custodial provisions for children. Here, Jessica's substantial nonmarital estate and her role as primary caregiver justified the unequal split.

The lesson for high-net-worth cases: an "equal" division is not a constitutional right. If your client sacrificed career advancement to raise children while the other spouse built a business, that calculus matters. If your client brought significant premarital assets into the marriage and kept them properly segregated, that matters too. Document it. Prove it. Make the court's job easy.

Procedural Preservation: The Forfeiture That Killed an Appeal

Steven challenged how the trial court listed his attorney-fee liabilities on appeal. The appellate court's response was blunt: forfeited.

He never raised the specific objection at trial. That failure to preserve the issue barred appellate review entirely. This isn't a technicality—it's a fundamental rule that attorneys ignore at their clients' peril.

The same principle applied to the timing of the fee petition. Steven argued the trial court erred by hearing his attorney's final fee petition before resolving his own petition for contribution. The appellate court acknowledged the sequencing wasn't ideal but found it harmless given the record. Why? Because Steven couldn't demonstrate actual prejudice.

Two takeaways:


Object on the record, specifically, at the time it matters. Vague complaints don't preserve issues. Silence preserves nothing.
If you're going to argue procedural error on appeal, you must show prejudice. "The court did it wrong" isn't enough. "The court did it wrong and here's exactly how that changed the outcome" is the standard.


The Technology Angle You're Probably Missing

High-net-worth divorces increasingly turn on digital evidence. Business valuations rely on financial records that live in cloud accounting software. Dissipation claims require tracing transactions across multiple platforms. Credibility determinations can hinge on whether someone's testimony matches their text messages, emails, or social media activity.

In Nasson, the expert testimony and pretrial valuations carried the day. But imagine if Steven had maintained better digital records of his distributions from Turf. Imagine if he'd preserved contemporaneous communications showing the business's declining value. The outcome might have been different.

Conversely, imagine if Jessica's team had pulled metadata from financial documents showing they'd been altered. Or recovered deleted text messages discussing hidden assets. The dissipation award could have been significantly higher.

Every family law case is now a cyber case. If you're not thinking about digital forensics, e-discovery, and data preservation from day one, you're leaving leverage on the table.

Strategic Imperatives for Illinois Practitioners

On valuation disputes: Hire your expert early. Get your client's story straight before the deposition. If opposing counsel's client is going to claim a business interest worth $800,000 is actually worth $80,000, make them explain that gap under oath with documents they can't produce.

On dissipation claims: Forensic tracing wins. Vague allegations lose. If you're prosecuting, hire an accountant who can follow the money. If you're defending, produce contemporaneous documentation showing legitimate marital purpose for every questioned expenditure.

On unequal divisions: Build the record on statutory factors. Primary caregiver status, nonmarital contributions, career sacrifices—all of it needs to be in evidence, not just in closing argument.

On preservation: Object specifically and contemporaneously. If you think the court made an error, say so on the record with enough detail that the appellate court knows exactly what you're challenging and why.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Nasson isn't groundbreaking law. It's a reminder that the fundamentals win cases: credible testimony, expert support, forensic documentation, and procedural discipline. The spouse who brings receipts beats the spouse who brings excuses. The attorney who preserves issues beats the attorney who assumes the appellate court will figure it out.

If you're facing a high-net-worth dissolution with business valuation disputes, dissipation claims, or complex asset tracing, the time to build your strategy is now—not after the trial court has already found your client "evasive."

Book a consultation today. Your opposition is already losing—let's make sure they know it.

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.