The Complete Dissipation Claims Timeline: What to Expect in Illinois

Published: 2/4/2026 • 10 min read
By Jonathan D. Steele
The Complete Dissipation Claims Timeline: What to Expect in Illinois

What should you know about the complete dissipation claims timeline: what to expect in illinois?

Quick Answer: Case Summary: In re Marriage of May, 2024 IL App (1st) 221485-U - **Core Legal Insight:** In *In re Marriage of May*, the Illinois First District affirmed that a dissipation notice lacking a specific date or period identifying when the marriage began its irretrievable breakdown is fatally defective under 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii), warranting complete exclusion of the claim via motion in limine. This procedural requirement is non-waivable through substantive engagement, meaning practitioners must either surgically plead the temporal framework in their notice or immediately object to its absence—regardless of the underlying merits.

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of May, 2024 IL App (1st) 221485-U - Core Legal Insight: In In re Marriage of May, the Illinois First District affirmed that a dissipation notice lacking a specific date or period identifying when the marriage began its irretrievable breakdown is fatally defective under 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii), warranting complete exclusion of the claim via motion in limine. This procedural requirement is non-waivable through substantive engagement, meaning practitioners must either surgically plead the temporal framework in their notice or immediately object to its absence—regardless of the underlying merits.

Expected Total Timeline: 9-18 months (varies by county and case complexity)

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot. In In re Marriage of May, the First District delivered a masterclass in procedural precision. Mary Lydia May entered that courtroom confident about her dissipation claim. She walked out with nothing. Not because the merits failed. Because her notice did.

Your opposition just blinked. Sloppy procedure means losing the war before the first deposition transcript arrives. Understanding the dissipation claims timeline in Illinois courts is essential. This knowledge matters whether you're asserting or defending against these high-stakes allegations.

Phase 1: Preparation and Notice Requirements (Weeks 1-4)

What Happens:

Key Deadline: Your dissipation notice must comply with 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii) requirements.

Common Delay: Incomplete financial affidavits cause setbacks. Deficient temporal frameworks in notices create bigger problems.

Pro Tip: Use encrypted file sharing for sensitive financial documents. Your attorney will thank you.

The Fatal Omission: What In re Marriage of May Actually Decided

Judges know that 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii) isn't optional reading. This statute governs dissipation claims in Illinois. It demands specificity that most practitioners treat as boilerplate. That's a catastrophic miscalculation.

In May, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's nuclear option. A motion in limine completely barred the respondent's dissipation claims. The weapon? A dissipation notice missing one critical element. It failed to identify "a date or period of time during which the marriage began undergoing an irretrievable breakdown."

Read that again. The notice existed. It alleged dissipation. It just didn't anchor the claim to a specific temporal framework. The First District held that omission was fatal.

Mary's counsel tried multiple arguments. They claimed general allegations of irretrievable breakdown in other pleadings should cure the defect. The court disagreed. They argued Patrick waived the objection by filing substantive responses. The court disagreed again. The procedural deficiency in the notice itself was dispositive.

Phase 2: Service and Response (Weeks 5-8)

What Happens:

Cybersecurity Note: Never serve dissipation documents via email or text. Only court-approved e-filing systems are acceptable.

The Strategic Calculus: Why Dissipation Claims Timeline Matters for High-Asset Cases

In high-net-worth dissolutions, dissipation claims often determine the outcome. These allegations assert that a spouse used marital assets for non-marital purposes. This misconduct must have occurred after the marriage began breaking down.

Common examples include:

When dissipation claims survive, they shift the equitable distribution calculus dramatically. When they get excluded on procedural grounds, your client absorbs the full weight of alleged misconduct. There's no recourse.

May establishes a clear rule. Illinois courts will enforce procedural gatekeeping with prejudice. This isn't a technical footnote. It's a strategic chokepoint in your timeline.

Phase 3: Discovery (Months 3-6)

What Happens:

Key Deadlines:

The Offensive Playbook: Weaponizing Procedural Deficiency in Dissipation Claims

Defending against dissipation claims? May just handed you a loaded weapon. Here's how to deploy it effectively:

Audit the notice immediately. Scrutinize it for the statutory temporal requirement the moment it arrives. Does it identify a specific date? A narrow period? Or does it use vague language like "during the breakdown of the marriage"? Vague language without a concrete timeframe is your opening.

Object early and in writing. Don't wait for trial. File your objection promptly and preserve the record. The May court rejected the waiver argument. That rejection depended on the defect being properly raised.

Move in limine before trial. A motion to exclude dissipation claims based on a defective notice is now proven strategy. The trial court in May granted it. The appellate court affirmed it. This is citable precedent.

Don't let substantive engagement become waiver. You can respond to discovery. You can deny allegations. You can prepare your defense. None of this waives the procedural defect. But document your objection clearly and consistently.

Phase 4: Mediation/Settlement Conference (Months 6-8)

What Happens:

Success Rate: Between 70-80% of Illinois dissolution cases settle before trial. However, contested dissipation claims often proceed to hearing.

The Defensive Playbook: Bulletproofing Your Dissipation Claims Timeline

Asserting dissipation claims? May is a warning shot. Here's how to ensure your claims survive:

Plead the temporal framework with surgical precision. Your notice must identify a specific date or narrow period. This is when the marriage began its irretrievable breakdown. Don't rely on general language in your petition. The notice itself must contain this information.

Anchor the breakdown to discoverable facts. The date you plead should be defensible. Tie it to specific events, communications, or conduct. Discovery of separation dates, affair timelines, or financial misconduct patterns should inform your temporal allegation.

Amend promptly if necessary. Discovery may reveal your initial timeframe was inaccurate or too broad. Serve an amended dissipation notice immediately. Don't assume the court will overlook deficiencies because your merits are strong.

Cross-reference digital evidence. Cyber forensics becomes indispensable here. Metadata on financial transactions provides timestamps. Communication records show patterns. Device location data establishes presence. These artifacts can establish the breakdown timeline with precision that survives challenge.

Consider this example: Your client's spouse transferred funds to a hidden account. Simultaneously, they texted a paramour. That digital trail defines your temporal framework with unassailable precision.

Phase 5: Pre-Trial and Trial (Months 9-12)

What Happens:

The Tech-Law Intersection: Digital Evidence in Illinois Dissipation Claims

High-net-worth dissolutions increasingly turn on digital evidence. May amplifies why that evidence matters for procedural compliance. It's not just about substantive proof.

Consider this scenario: Your client suspects asset funneling. Their spouse has been transferring marital assets to a business partner. That partner is also a romantic interest. You need to establish when the marriage began breaking down. This anchors your dissipation notice.

Traditional discovery gets you part of the way there. Interrogatories and depositions reveal some information. But digital forensics establishes the timeline with granular precision:

This evidence doesn't just prove dissipation. It defines the temporal framework your notice requires under Illinois law.

Here's the leverage angle: Negligent digital security creates opportunities. Shared devices leave trails. Unsecured financial accounts expose transactions. Discoverable metadata becomes your roadmap. Cyber negligence in a high-asset marriage isn't just a security failure. It's a litigation gift.

Phase 6: Post-Judgment (Ongoing)

What Happens:

The Waiver Trap: What May Doesn't Excuse in Illinois Dissipation Claims

The May court rejected the waiver argument. But don't read that as a blanket license to sandbag. The court's reasoning turned on specific facts. The procedural defect was properly raised. Substantive responses didn't constitute acceptance of the deficient notice.

Imagine a different scenario. You're defending against dissipation claims. You fail to object. You engage with the claim as though the notice were sufficient. You participate in merits discovery without preserving your objection. Then you raise the procedural defect for the first time at trial.

You're inviting a waiver finding. The May precedent protects diligent practitioners. It doesn't protect those who sleep on their rights.

Timeline Variables That Extend the Dissipation Claims Process