In re Marriage of Schonert, 2025 IL App (4th) 241115-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Schonert, 2025 IL App (4th) 241115-U - The Illinois Fourth District Court of Appeals in In re Marriage of Schonert (August 2025) reversed a trial court's classification of a 1969 Ford Mustang as marital property and vacated the maintenance ruling, holding that trial courts must make explicit statutory findings under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-2) when determining maintenance—a requirement that cannot be bypassed even when a party has credibility issues regarding financial disclosures. The decision also clarified that restoration work alone does not convert nonmarital property to marital property without sufficient proof of commingling or traceable marital fund contributions, while affirming the equal division of pensions via QDRO and the denial of attorney fees on a show-cause petition.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and if you're reading this after In re Marriage of Schonert landed on August 20, 2025, you should be too. The Fourth District just handed Illinois family law practitioners a masterclass in what happens when trial courts cut corners on statutory requirements, and the implications ripple far beyond McLean County.

Your opposition thinks they can slide past maintenance findings with vague judicial reasoning. The appellate court just told them otherwise. Let me break down exactly why this non-precedential ruling matters for your high-asset case—and how to weaponize its holdings before your adversary figures out what hit them.

The Schonert Framework: What Actually Happened

Samantha Thorne (formerly Schonert) and Scott Schonert battled over classic vehicles, Caterpillar pensions, maintenance, and attorney fees. The trial court made several critical errors that the Fourth District systematically dismantled:


    
The 1969 Ford Mustang: Reversed. Trial court's classification as marital property was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
    
The 1970 Chevrolet Blazer: Affirmed as marital property based on substantial marital investment.
    
Maintenance: Vacated and remanded. The trial court failed to make the explicit statutory findings required under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-2).
    
Pension division: Affirmed. Equal split via QDRO stands.
    
Attorney fees on show-cause petition: Affirmed denial.


This isn't just procedural housekeeping. This is the appellate court drawing a hard line in the sand about what trial courts must do—and giving you the ammunition to demand compliance.

Property Classification: The Restoration Trap

Here's where most practitioners get sloppy. The trial court looked at Samantha's 1969 Mustang—restored during the marriage—and reflexively stamped it "marital." The Fourth District said: not so fast.

The appellate court's reasoning is surgical: restoration work alone, without sufficient proof of commingling, transmutation, or marital contribution traceable to marital funds, does not convert nonmarital property. This is critical for anyone dealing with classic cars, art collections, family heirlooms, or any premarital asset that received attention during the marriage.

Contrast this with the 1970 Blazer. That vehicle had "substantial marital investment and improvements during the marriage tied to marital activity." The distinction matters: documented marital funds flowing into an asset creates a different evidentiary picture than mere effort or time.

Strategic Implications for High-Asset Cases

If you're protecting premarital assets: Document everything. Maintain separate accounts for restoration or improvement costs. Keep receipts showing nonmarital fund sources. The burden of proving nonmarital status rests on the party claiming it—and Schonert confirms that burden can be met with proper documentation.

If you're attacking claimed nonmarital property: Trace the money. Subpoena bank records. Depose the other party about specific expenditures. The Blazer was classified as marital because the marital investment was "substantial" and "tied to marital activity." Make your opponent prove the negative—that no marital funds touched their precious premarital toy.

And here's where cyber-forensics enters the frame: digital payment records, Venmo transactions, PayPal histories, and cryptocurrency wallets don't lie. If your opponent claims they funded that restoration with "separate money," demand the blockchain receipts. Demand the bank statements with metadata. In 2025, claiming you can't produce digital financial records is either incompetence or obstruction—and judges are increasingly skeptical of both.

The Maintenance Meltdown: 504(b-2) Findings Are Non-Negotiable

This is the heart of Schonert's practical impact. The trial court effectively denied Samantha maintenance, and the appellate court found this constituted an abuse of discretion. Why? Because the trial court failed to make the required, specific factual findings under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-2).

The statute requires courts to address specific factors when determining maintenance. This isn't optional. It's not a suggestion. The Fourth District made clear that a trial court cannot substitute its frustration with a party's conduct—in this case, alleged misrepresentation about retirement accounts—for the mandatory statutory analysis.

Read that again: the court cannot use maintenance as a sanction. If a party lies about assets, there are remedies. Contempt. Sanctions. Adverse inferences. But denying or reducing maintenance without walking through the 504(b-2) factors? That's reversible error.

What This Means for Your Practice

At trial: Force the record. When the court rules on maintenance, immediately request that the court state its findings under each 504(b-2) factor on the record. If the court declines or glosses over factors, you've preserved your appellate issue.

In your proposed orders: Draft findings of fact that address each statutory factor. Make the court engage with your framework. If they reject your proposed findings, they must explain why—creating a record either way.

On appeal: Schonert gives you a roadmap. If the trial court's maintenance ruling lacks explicit 504(b-2) findings, you have grounds for vacatur and remand. This is particularly powerful in cases where the trial court appeared to punish your client for perceived credibility issues rather than conducting the required analysis.

The Financial Disclosure Warning Shot

Let's address the elephant in the courtroom: Samantha allegedly made misrepresentations about retirement accounts. The appellate court acknowledged the trial court's concern but held that this concern cannot override statutory requirements.

This cuts both ways. If you're representing the party with credibility issues, Schonert protects you from judicial overreach. The court must still do its job, regardless of how it feels about your client's disclosure failures.

But if you're the party who caught your opponent in a lie? Don't rely on the court's irritation to do your work. Pursue the proper remedies: motions to compel, contempt proceedings, requests for adverse inferences, and sanctions. Build the record. Document the deception. Then argue that the deception should inform credibility assessments on disputed factual issues—not that it should result in an automatic maintenance denial.

And here's the tech angle your opponent isn't thinking about: financial disclosure failures in 2025 are increasingly discoverable through digital forensics. Hidden accounts leave traces. Cryptocurrency wallets have public ledgers. Offshore transfers trigger reporting requirements. If your opponent is lying about retirement accounts, the question isn't whether the evidence exists—it's whether you're sophisticated enough to find it.

Pension Division: The QDRO Reality Check

The Fourth District affirmed the equal division of Caterpillar pensions via QDRO. This holding is straightforward, but the practical implications deserve attention.

If you're litigating pension division:


    
Raise valuation issues at trial. The appellate court won't revisit factual determinations that weren't properly preserved below.
    
Address retirement-date assumptions. When will the employee spouse retire? What assumptions drive the present value calculation? These questions must be answered before judgment.
    
Prepare for QDRO drafting battles. The judgment says "equal division," but the devil lives in the QDRO language. Survivor benefits. Cost-of-living adjustments. Early retirement subsidies. These details can shift tens of thousands of dollars.


Attorney Fees: The Show-Cause Limitation

Scott sought attorney fees related to his petition for rule to show cause. The trial court denied the request, and the Fourth District affirmed.

The lesson: when seeking fees tied to contempt or show-cause matters, you must establish a clear evidentiary link between the fees incurred and the specific order allegedly violated. Generalized fee requests without this nexus will fail.

This is where meticulous billing records become essential. If you're pursuing contempt, segregate your time entries. Document which hours relate to the show-cause petition versus other case activity. Make the connection explicit in your fee petition. Judges—and appellate courts—need a clear path from violation to remedy.

The Broader Strategic Landscape

Schonert arrives at a moment when Illinois family courts are increasingly scrutinizing procedural compliance. Trial judges are busy. Dockets are crowded. The temptation to issue summary rulings without detailed findings is real.

Your job is to make that temptation costly. Every maintenance ruling without 504(b-2) findings is an appellate issue. Every property classification without proper tracing analysis is vulnerable. The Fourth District just reminded everyone that shortcuts have consequences.

For high-net-worth cases, this matters exponentially. When the marital estate includes multiple properties, business interests, retirement accounts, and collectible assets, the margin for judicial error expands. Schonert gives you the tools to demand precision—and to appeal when precision is lacking.

Action Items for Illinois Family Law Practitioners


    
Audit your pending cases for 504(b-2) compliance. If you have a maintenance ruling without explicit statutory findings, evaluate your appellate options.
    
Strengthen your property tracing protocols. The Mustang/Blazer distinction in Schonert turns entirely on documentation. Build your evidentiary foundation early.
    
Integrate digital forensics into discovery. Financial misrepresentations are increasingly detectable through electronic records. If you're not using these tools, you're leaving leverage on the table.
    
Prepare QDRO language before judgment. Don't leave pension division details to post-judgment negotiation. Control the narrative at trial.
    
Segregate fee records for contempt proceedings. If you're seeking fees on a show-cause petition, your billing must demonstrate the direct connection.


The Bottom Line

The Fourth District just handed you a blueprint. Schonert confirms that trial courts must do the work—explicit findings, proper tracing, statutory compliance. When they don't, you have appellate recourse.

Your opponent is hoping you won't notice. They're hoping the trial court's cursory ruling will stand unchallenged. They're hoping you'll accept a maintenance denial dressed up as judicial discretion.

They're wrong.

If you're facing a high-asset divorce in Illinois and your opposition thinks they can skip the statutory requirements, it's time to remind them what happens when the appellate court reviews their shortcuts. Book a consultation now—because the other side is already scrambling to figure out what Schonert means for their case. You should be three moves ahead.

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.