In re Marriage of Xinos, 2025 IL App (1st) 232326

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Xinos, 2025 IL App (1st) 232326 - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois First District Court recently ruled in favor of Catherine Xinos, affirming the trial court's exclusion of evidence from Michael Marino's pro se appeal, and providing guidance on the importance of discovery compliance in high-asset dissolution cases. The opinion emphasizes that failure to comply with discovery obligations can result in severe consequences, including the exclusion of evidence and the characterization of property as marital, highlighting the need for parties to take proactive steps to ensure their discovery requests are met.

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

The First District just handed down In re Marriage of Xinos, and if you're sitting across the table from a spouse who thinks they can stonewall discovery and then waltz into trial with a stack of "nonmarital" account statements, this opinion is your new favorite weapon. The Appellate Court didn't just affirm the trial court's exclusion of evidence—they methodically dismantled every procedural escape hatch the respondent tried to squeeze through.

Let me translate what this means for your high-asset dissolution: discovery compliance isn't optional, and the consequences for failure are now crystallized in published precedent.

The Setup: A Pro Se Respondent Learns Expensive Lessons

Michael Marino appealed pro se after the trial court granted Catherine Xinos's motion in limine under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c), excluding his evidence that certain financial accounts were nonmarital property. His defense? He claimed the accounts existed before the marriage and should have been carved out of the marital estate.

The problem: He never produced the documents proving it. Not in discovery. Not in supplementation. Not at trial.

The trial court characterized those accounts as marital property and divided them accordingly. Marino appealed, arguing the exclusion was improper and the characterization was error.

The First District's response was surgical: Affirmed on all counts.

The Forfeiture Doctrine Has Teeth

Here's where practitioners need to pay close attention. When evidence is excluded via motion in limine, the burden shifts to the opposing party to make an adequate, particularized offer of proof at trial. Not a vague objection. Not a general protest. A detailed, on-the-record proffer of what the excluded evidence would have shown.

Marino made no such offer. The appellate court held he forfeited his right to challenge the exclusion on appeal.

And before anyone starts drafting a sympathy argument about pro se litigants navigating complex procedural requirements, the court shut that door explicitly: pro se status does not excuse compliance with procedural rules.

This isn't new law, but it's a pointed reminder. If you're representing the spouse who just got evidence excluded, you have one job: get that offer of proof on the record with specificity. If you're opposing counsel watching your adversary fail to do this, you're watching them hand you the appeal.

Rule 219(c): The Discovery Enforcement Mechanism That Actually Works

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219(c) authorizes trial courts to impose sanctions for discovery violations, including the exclusion of evidence. The Xinos court affirmed that exclusion was an appropriate remedy here because:


Respondent never supplemented discovery despite ongoing obligations
He failed to produce documents responsive to interrogatories and requests specifically seeking nonmarital account documentation
He admitted at trial that he had not tendered documents evidencing pre-marital balances


The appellate court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard and found none. The trial court had ample basis to conclude that exclusion was warranted.

Strategic takeaway: If your opposing party is dragging their feet on financial discovery, document every failure meticulously. Every unanswered interrogatory. Every deficient response. Every missed supplementation deadline. Then file your motion in limine with receipts. The Xinos court just validated this approach with a published opinion.

The Marital Presumption Is Not a Suggestion

Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, property acquired during the marriage is presumed marital. The burden to rebut that presumption falls on the party claiming nonmarital character—and they must do so with clear and convincing evidence.

Marino failed spectacularly. Even where some account statements appeared in the record (many introduced by petitioner for other purposes), those statements didn't establish:


Account opening dates predating the marriage
Source of funds as nonmarital
Tracing of contributions to nonmarital origin


The trial court found he failed to overcome the marital presumption. The appellate court agreed.

This is where I see sophisticated parties make catastrophic errors. They assume that because they "know" an account was theirs before the marriage, the court will simply accept that narrative. Courts don't work on vibes. They work on evidence. Admissible evidence. Properly disclosed evidence.

The Cyber-Law Intersection: Digital Records Are Your Best Friend or Worst Enemy

Let me connect this to something I emphasize constantly: digital forensics and electronic records management are now core competencies in high-asset divorce litigation.

Marino's failure wasn't just procedural—it was evidentiary. He couldn't produce records showing account opening dates or contribution histories. In 2025, those records exist. Banks maintain them. Brokerage firms maintain them. Retirement plan administrators maintain them.

If your client is claiming nonmarital character, you should be subpoenaing third-party records directly from financial institutions. Don't rely on your client's memory or their incomplete personal files. Get the custodian-certified records that show:


Account inception date
Contribution history with dates and amounts
Source of deposits (payroll, transfers, rollovers)
Balance as of date of marriage


If you're opposing a nonmarital claim, probe whether those records exist and whether they've been produced. The absence of proper documentation is itself evidence—evidence that the presumption hasn't been rebutted.

The "Counsel Error" Trap

One subtext in Xinos deserves attention: what happens when prior counsel's failures create discovery defaults?

The court noted that postjudgment attempts to cure discovery defaults will be scrutinized heavily. If you're stepping into a case where previous counsel dropped the ball on discovery, you need to move immediately:


File a motion to reopen discovery with a detailed showing of diligence
Seek a continuance of trial to allow proper supplementation
Create a record documenting exactly what was and wasn't produced, when, and why


Courts have discretion here, but that discretion isn't unlimited. The longer you wait, the worse your position becomes. Xinos makes clear that discovery failures have consequences that survive counsel transitions.

Practical Checklist: Protecting Nonmarital Claims

For practitioners handling characterization disputes, here's your operational framework:


Gather records early. Don't wait for discovery requests. Obtain account statements, plan documents, and transaction histories going back to before the marriage.
Subpoena third parties. Banks, brokerages, and retirement plan administrators will produce certified records. These carry more weight than client-produced documents.
Supplement continuously. Discovery obligations are ongoing. If you obtain new documents supporting your characterization claim, supplement immediately.
Respond completely. If opposing counsel asks for documents supporting nonmarital claims, produce everything. Partial production invites sanctions.
Preserve the record. If evidence is excluded, make a detailed offer of proof. Specify what the evidence would show, how it's relevant, and why exclusion is prejudicial.


The Strategic Reality

The judge already knows who's been playing games with discovery. The Xinos opinion is a roadmap for how those games end: with evidence excluded, presumptions unrebutted, and assets characterized against the non-compliant party.

If you're the compliant party, this opinion arms you with precedent to enforce discovery obligations aggressively. If you're the party who's been slow-walking production, consider this your wake-up call.

High-asset dissolutions are won or lost in discovery. By the time you're at trial, the battle lines are already drawn. Xinos confirms what experienced practitioners have always known: procedural discipline isn't just good practice—it's outcome-determinative.

Your opposition is already losing. The question is whether you're positioned to capitalize.

If you're navigating a complex Illinois dissolution with significant assets at stake, book a consultation now. The discovery clock is already running.

[[CONFIDENCE:9|SWAGGER:9]]

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.