Illinois Appellate Case Law Repository

In re Marriage of Mercier

Date Published: 6/30/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241075

Case Number: 1-24-1075
Date Filed: June 30, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Division: Third Division

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellant: Ljiljana Mercier
Respondent-Appellee: Mark Mercier
Originating Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Case Number: 17 D 330844
Presiding Judge: Honorable Michael Forti

Case Background

A judgment for dissolution of marriage between Mark Mercier and Ljiljana Mercier was entered on September 19, 2019, with a Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) specifying that Ljiljana's pension was her sole property until January 1, 2022, after which Mark would receive 50% of the payments, confirmed by a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) on January 3, 2022. Mark filed a motion on June 7, 2022, to enforce this order due to non-payment, leading to ongoing disputes.

Legal Proceedings

Lily's failure to respond to Mark's motions within deadlines resulted in a default request by Mark in September 2022. Lily later attempted to transfer the case, which was dismissed by the court during hearings on June 16, 2023, where the interpretation of the MSA was confirmed in Mark's favor. Subsequent court orders mandated compliance from Lily, which she repeatedly failed to meet, prompting Mark to seek attorney fees under section 508(b) of the Marriage Act.

Judgment and Sanctions

The appellate court upheld the trial court's sanction of $25,000 against Ljiljana for prolonging the litigation unnecessarily and failing to comply with lawful orders. Ljiljana argued that her actions were justified and that Mark's claims were unfounded. However, the court noted her actions had continually delayed proceedings, referencing her unsuccessful attempts to introduce new arguments regarding undisclosed assets and payments.

Appeal Findings

Lily appealed the trial court’s decision regarding the attorney fees, arguing the trial court had erred by not conducting a formal evidentiary hearing on Mark's fee petition. The appellate court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, affirming the award as reasonable given the circumstances. Lily’s arguments, including contentions about the reasonableness of Mark’s fees, were deemed forfeited as they were not effectively raised during the initial trial.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, confirming Mark was entitled to the awarded attorney fees under section 508(b), justified by Lily's conduct throughout the litigation process.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Mercier

In re Marriage of Liou

Date Published: 6/26/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: No. 1-22-1630

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 221630-U
Division: Fourth Division
Date: June 26, 2025
Case Number: No. 1-22-1630

Background

The plaintiff-appellee, Ms. Liou, filed for divorce from the defendant-appellant Timothy K. Liou after approximately 15 years of marriage. During the proceedings, Mr. Liou's law practice was impacted by a permanent suspension by the bankruptcy court.

The trial court appointed Neal H. Levin as the receiver for Mr. Liou's firm on August 20, 2013, with specific duties including managing firm assets and ensuring compliance with legal obligations.

Receiver's Appointment and Duties

Under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 776, the receiver was tasked with taking custody of the firm’s files, notifying clients, and managing the firm's financial matters, including billing for services rendered at $595/hour.

Fee Applications and Objections

Mr. Liou objected to the receiver's fee applications, citing inflated billing and non-compliance with procedural rules. Despite his objections, the circuit court granted the fee applications, stating the rates charged were reasonable and aligned with services provided. Mr. Liou appealed this decision, arguing procedural errors and seeking a full evidentiary hearing.

Evidentiary Hearing and Testimonies

Following an appellate reversal mandating a hearing, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing where key witnesses, including the receiver and his staff, testified about the firm's management and the legitimacy of the billed services. The trial court found the receiver's actions credible while ultimately questioning Mr. Liou's credibility.

Court Findings and Judgment

The court concluded that Mr. Liou's arguments regarding the fee applications lacked merit as the evidence did not support claims of mismanagement or inflated billing. The trial court affirmed the receiver's compensation requests, leading to the appellate court upholding the lower court’s ruling.

Additionally, the court determined that the sale of office space, necessitated by the receiver's management, effectively increased costs attributed to Mr. Liou's interference in the proceedings.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court's order regarding the receiver's fee petitions, reinforcing that no errors were made in the applied legal standards or the findings of fact.

This case is filed under Supreme Court Rule 23; it is not a binding precedent except in specified circumstances.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Liou

In re Marriage of Kreps

Date Published: 6/25/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Kreps

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District Case Number: 2025 IL App (5th) 250053-U Appeal From: Circuit Court of White County Judgment Date: June 25, 2025

Background

Petitioner Brian A. Kreps and Respondent Ashley B. Kreps (now Ashley B. Birdwell) were previously married on January 26, 2012, and have one child, Owen Kristopher Kreps, born August 10, 2016. Their marriage was dissolved with a judgment on August 10, 2021, which included a shared parenting plan that designated Ashley as the primary residential parent, with significant responsibilities allocated to both parents.

Pleading and Disputes

Ashley filed a petition to relocate to Evansville, Indiana, which Brian opposed. He subsequently filed a petition to modify the parenting responsibilities because he alleged Ashley was withholding parenting time and raised concerns regarding Owen’s welfare under Ashley’s care. The parents engaged in multiple legal proceedings addressing their disputes regarding parenting time, allegations of parental misconduct, and Ashley's relocation request.

Trial Court Decision

A two-day bench trial concluded with the trial court denying Ashley's petition to relocate and granting Brian's petition to modify parenting responsibilities. However, it failed to provide adequate factual findings to support its rulings.

Appellate Court Findings

The Appellate Court found that the trial court did not make sufficient factual findings to justify its decisions, leading it to reverse the lower court's orders and remand the case for further proceedings. The appellate court emphasized the necessity for clear factual support when making determinations regarding child custody and parental relocation under Section 609.2 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Legal Standards Considered

In deciding the relocation petition, the court examined various factors, including the child's wishes, parental relationships, educational opportunities, and the potential impact on the child. Prior case law established that courts must defer to the original fact finder’s conclusions unless clear justification for reversal exists.

Notice and Compliance

The appellate court noted that non-compliance with notice requirements under Section 609.2(d) may affect perceptions of good faith in relocation requests, and findings must meet the manifest weight standard to be upheld.

Outcome

The appellate court's ruling reversed the trial court decisions due to the lack of empirical support for its findings, highlighting the importance of maintaining a substantive basis for custody and relocation decisions. The case was remanded for re-evaluation with proper factual findings to guide future determinations.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Kreps

In re Marriage of Harnack

Date Published: 6/24/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pamela Harnack (No. 1-24-0835)

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Date Filed: June 24, 2025

Background

Pam Harnack, the petitioner, is in an ongoing legal battle with her ex-husband, Steve Fanady, who has been incarcerated for over 13 years for refusing to transfer stock valued at over $10 million awarded in their divorce settlement. Despite knowing the value, Fanady has attempted to conceal marital assets and evade compliance with the court's orders regarding the division of their marital estate.

Financial Findings

The trial court initially ruled Fanady's worth at approximately $7.3 million in 2010, while Harnack faced significant financial difficulties. The marital estate included 280,000 shares of Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. (CBOE) stock, and subsequent court rulings awarded 120,000 shares to Harnack.

Contempt Ruling

The court upheld a contempt finding against Fanady, stating he must either transfer assets or their value to Harnack. His motion to vacate his contempt incarceration was denied, as he did not sufficiently show that compliance was impossible. The appellate court agreed with this ruling, noting Fanady’s history of evading legal obligations.

Judicial Findings

Fanady's actions included transferring assets internationally and ceasing participation in the dissolution proceedings, leading to a default judgment against him. He later attempted to mislead the court by arguing that compliance was impossible due to the dissolution of the CBOE. However, the court found him responsible for his situation, reiterating that incarceration remains a coercive method to compel compliance with court orders.

Subsequent Proceedings

Fanady's appeal included challenging earlier decisions in prior cases (Harnack I-IV) and arguing about procedural errors in contempt hearings. The court maintained that due process was followed, dismissing Fanady's appeals as he failed to provide compelling evidence of his claims. On multiple occasions, Fanady did not demonstrate an inability to comply with the orders handed down by the court.

Recent Developments

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, reinforcing the legitimacy of the contempt ruling and the necessity of Fanady's compliance with the court orders. Harnack seeks not only her awarded shares but has also pushed for compensatory measures due to Fanady's continued non-compliance, which the court supported.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the court ruled that Fanady had the financial means and legal obligation to fulfill the court's orders, emphasizing that the length of his incarceration served as a reminder of his contemptuous behavior and the necessity for compliance with legal obligations regarding the division of the marital estate. This order is not precedent except as allowed under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1).

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Harnack

In re Marriage of Heaver

Date Published: 6/23/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re The Marriage of Sean and Christine Heaver

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (2d) 250021-U
Case Numbers: No. 2-25-0021 & 2-25-0075 cons.
Order Filed: June 23, 2025

Background

The case arises from the divorce between Sean Heaver (Petitioner-Appellee) and Christine Heaver (Respondent-Appellant), with decisions concerning their minor child, B.H. Following allegations of abuse and a trial court-issued plenary order of protection against Christine in 2020, custody arrangements were modified multiple times. Sean filed a petition to modify the Allocation Judgment in January 2020, citing Christine's detrimental behavior towards his relationship with B.H., including unfounded accusations and unilateral decisions regarding B.H.'s care.

Court Decision

Judge: Justice Hutchinson, with Justices McLaren and Jorgensen concurring. The court found a substantial change in circumstances warranting the modification of parenting time and decision-making authority. Key aspects considered included both parents' mental and physical health and the adjustment of B.H. to his home and school environments.

Key Findings

The trial court ruled that Sean met his burden of proving a substantial change in circumstances. Evidence included repeated unfounded accusations by Christine and her detrimental actions affecting B.H.'s well-being.
Trial court findings showed Christine encouraged B.H. to accuse Sean of abuse and failed to promote a healthy relationship between them.

Appeals and Procedural Issues

Christine filed her first notice of appeal on January 16, 2025, and a second on February 26, 2025, following the appointment of a parenting coordinator. The court noted substantial compliance issues in Christine's second brief, which were repetitious and unclear, leading to arguments being deemed forfeited. Sean's motion to strike Christine's second brief was considered appropriate as her arguments lacked distinctiveness and did not adequately demonstrate errors in prior court proceedings.

Conclusion

The trial court's judgment was affirmed, upholding the modifications made to the Allocation Judgment in light of substantial changes affecting the child’s best interests. The court emphasized the importance of clear arguments and the appellant's responsibility to present coherent claims.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Heaver

Marriage of Kalebic

Date Published: 6/20/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (2d) 230272

Date Filed: June 20, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Case Involved: In re Marriage of Charlene Kalebic n/k/a Carlene Quint
Case Number: No. 12-D-2257
Judges: Honorable Ari P. Fisz, Michael B. Betar, Justice Mullen

Parties:

Petitioner: Charlene Kalebic (now Quint)
Respondent: Thomas Kalebic

Background

The parties married on November 29, 1992, and filed for dissolution on November 28, 2012. A marital settlement agreement (MSA) leading to a judgment of dissolution was established on April 21, 2014.

Key Findings and Rulings:

The court upheld the trial court's judgment enforcement related to collection cases.
Payments termed "cash payments" in the MSA were not classified as "alimony," making them unenforceable against the respondent's social security benefits.
The petitioner forfeited arguments regarding the trial court's failure to calculate unpaid maintenance.
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's citation to discover assets linked to the Social Security Administration (SSA).
The motion to reconsider related to maintenance calculations in prior judgments was denied.

Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) Overview

The MSA stipulated obligations regarding maintenance and property division. Key articles include: - **Maintenance**: The respondent agreed to pay $4,412 monthly in non-modifiable maintenance, together totaling $450,000 over 102 payments. - **Cash Payments**: Specific cash payment obligations were delineated, including a lump sum payment upon the MSA's effective date, conditional payments based on property sales, and monthly installments. - **Property Settlement**: The MSA allocated various assets between the parties and stipulated the obligations' continuation beyond the petitioner’s death for the estate.

Claims and Legal Proceedings

The petitioner alleged the respondent owed substantial past-due payments reflecting unpaid maintenance. A contempt motion was filed due to the respondent's default on payments, leading to a ruling in favor of the petitioner for owed amounts, including interest. Subsequent actions included motions to modify orders and a contempt order related to ongoing judicial proceedings about the same issues.

Pleadings and Appeals

The respondent challenged court orders regarding maintenance allocation and contested the jurisdiction of family versus collections court. The petitioner maintained that alleged payments were predominantly maintenance, initiating garnishment proceedings against the respondent's social security benefits.

Judicial Findings and Conclusions

The court emphasized the importance of intent and substance in classifications of payments, asserting that the "cash payments" were indicative of a property settlement rather than maintenance. The petitioner’s inconsistencies in presenting claims about these payments were noted. Ultimately, the court affirmed jurisdiction and upheld previous rulings against the petitioner’s appeals, emphasizing procedural forfeitures in claims unsupported by relevant citations.

Final Observations

The decision reflects complex interactions regarding maintenance obligations, property division disputes, and the determination of statutory duties towards social security payments. The appellate rulings and the underlying principles appear significant in exemplifying the nuances within family law, particularly in the interpretation of divorce settlements and the intent of marital agreements.

Download PDF of Marriage of Kalebic

In re Marriage of Ziegelman

Date Published: 6/17/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 230026 -U
Case Number: No. 1-23-0026
Date: June 16, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellant: John Ziegelman
Respondent-Appellee: Debra Ziegelman
Trial Court: Cook County, Illinois
Judge: Honorable Karen J. Bowes

Judgment Overview

Justice Pucinski delivered the judgment, with Presiding Justice Fitzgerald Smith and Justice Cobbs concurring. The court confirmed its jurisdiction over the maintenance modification request but noted that John Ziegelman failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances. Additionally, the trial court's contempt order was deemed inadequate due to the lack of findings regarding willfulness or the type of contempt.

Order Highlights

Jurisdiction established for John's maintenance modification request.
Maintenance provisions outlined in the Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) are modifiable under specific conditions.
John did not prove a substantial change in circumstances regarding his income or employment status.
The contempt order failed to specify the nature of contempt or the willfulness of John's actions.

Background

This case originates from the dissolution of marriage between John and Debra, with a petition filed by Debra on August 17, 2011, and a judgment finalized on October 9, 2015. They have three children, two adults and one minor. Debra's claim of John's failure to meet support obligations under their MSA prompted John's appeal to modify these obligations based on alleged substantial changes in his circumstances.

Support Obligations and Financial Context

John is mandated to pay 40% of his gross income, capped at an annual gross income of $3 million, starting January 1, 2021. His maintenance payment commences at a fixed rate of $40 monthly, subject to specific termination events per the MSA. The court ruled against his attempt to modify support based solely on changes in employment, income was anticipated to vary significantly over time, and upon consideration of Debra's financial support from her parents, which, while substantial, had been ongoing.

Trial Court Rulings and Appeals

The trial court upheld Debra's position while denying John's requests regarding modifications. It concluded that John's change in employment to self-employment did not qualify as a sufficient basis for altering his maintenance obligations, emphasizing the need for a substantial change under the IMDMA. John's appeal raised issues of due process concerning the contempt findings, which were found inadequate, necessitating a remand to clarify the nature of contempt and to properly document the trial court’s rationale.

Contempt and Due Process Considerations

The trial court's contempt order against John indicated non-compliance with the MSA; however, it lacked clarifying findings on whether John's actions were willful or constitutive of civil or criminal contempt, which the court identified as a significant oversight. Legal precedents emphasize the necessity for explicit determinations regarding the nature of contempt and required due process protections.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s jurisdiction and foundation for maintenance obligations but reversed the contempt ruling, mandating further proceedings to address the willfulness of John's actions and properly classify contempt, thus ensuring the judicial process complies with due process standards.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Ziegelman

In re Marriage of Isom

Date Published: 6/17/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary

Case Title: In re Marriage of Angela Isom and Gbolahan Kareem
Filed: June 16, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Appeal Number: 3-24-0491
Circuit Number: 22-DC-552
Judge: Honorable Joan Meyers

Background

Angela Isom and Gbolahan Kareem married in April 2019 and have one child born in 2020. Gbolahan, who held an immigrant visa, applied for permanent residency, which was denied in February 2022, prompting Angela to file for dissolution of marriage. Following the dissolution in July 2022, the court initially set child support at $518 per month in January 2023. Allegations surfaced that Gbolahan was willfully underemployed after leaving a higher-paying job.

Child Support Orders

During subsequent proceedings, Gbolahan's income was imputed at $87,360 annually after he did not appear at an April 2023 hearing, raising support payments to $909 monthly. Gbolahan's motions to reduce these payments were dismissed, and by September 2023, payments further increased to $1,109 to account for arrears.

Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA)

In December 2023, both parties entered into a voluntary MSA, addressing maintenance, parental responsibilities, support, insurance, and educational support. All provisions were ratified and incorporated into the Judgment for Dissolution of Marriage.

Trial Court's Ruling and Appeals

The appellate review focused on whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Gbolahan's request to reduce child support. Gbolahan argued that a change in his circumstances justified the reduction; however, the court deemed the change voluntary. His appeal was complicated by the lack of a complete trial record, including necessary evidence and documentation to support his claims.

Legal Standard for Appellate Review

The court presumes that trial judges apply the correct law unless shown otherwise. Gbolahan's appeal was hindered by incorrect citations and insufficient legal authority, resulting in the court affirming the lower court's ruling without finding any abuse of discretion.

Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed, reflecting the court’s determination that Gbolahan provided an inadequate appellate record and failed to substantiate his claims regarding child support modification.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Isom

In re Marriage of Nasson

Date Published: 6/13/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 2 30951 -U Date Filed: June 13, 2025 Case Numbers: Nos. 1-23-0951, 1-23-1765, & 1-23-2043 (cons.)

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Jessica Nasson Respondent: Steven Nasson Appellee's Counsel: Frumm & Frumm

Circuit Court Details

Court: Circuit Court of Cook County Judge: Honorable Lori Rosen Case Number: 19 D 5148

Background

The case involved a lengthy and contentious divorce process for Jessica and Steven, married on December 12, 2015, and parents to one son. Jessica filed for dissolution on June 13, 2019, followed by Steven’s petition shortly after. The dissolution judgment was issued on April 24, 2023, after a multi-day trial in 2022.

Dissolution Judgment and Financial Details

The marital estate was divided with an emphasis on a 60/40 split favoring Jessica due to her role as the primary caretaker and Steven's substantially larger nonmarital assets. The court identified various assets and liabilities, including a 40% interest in Turf valued at $800,000, and determined that both parties had minimal debts aside from litigation costs. The court affirmed the findings of asset dissipation, with Steven required to reimburse the marital estate $29,200.25 for personal expenditures during the marriage.

Attorney Fees and Disputes

The court ordered Steven to pay $130,000 in attorney fees to Jessica’s counsel, Frumm & Frumm, who noted significant attorney costs were incurred during the lengthy litigation. Steven contested these fees, challenging their reasonableness and timing; however, the court found the fees fair and reasonable. Steven's appeals included challenges to the dissolution judgment, the findings of asset dissipation, and the attorney fees awarded to Frumm & Frumm, asserting that the improper timing of fee assessments violated statutory provisions. Nonetheless, the appellate court considered any potential errors harmless, affirming the lower court’s decisions, stating that the sequence of fees awarded did not adversely affect the outcome.

Key Findings and Verdict

The appellate court confirmed:

The court acted within its discretion in dividing the marital estate.
Charges of dissipation against Steven were substantiated by evidence.
Steven’s claims regarding attorney fees were forfeited due to his failure to raise issues timely in the trial court.

Overall, the court upheld the trial court's decisions regarding the dissolution, financial division, attorney fees, and the ruling on dissipation, concluding with an affirmation of the trial court’s judgment.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Nasson

In re Marriage of Conklin

Date Published: 6/12/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Conklin

Case Details: Order Filed: June 12, 2025 Appellate Court: Illinois, Third District Appellate Case No.: 3-24-0330 Circuit Case No.: 11-D-2135 Judge: Honorable Alexander F. McGimpsey III Parties Involved: Petitioner: Carolyn M. Conklin (now Carolyn M. Elbrecht) Respondent: Edward K. Conklin Background: Carolyn and Edward were married in 1988 and divorced in 2012. Their marital settlement mandated maintenance payments of $6,250 per month plus 45% of income exceeding Edward's base pay of $201,272. A modification was made in 2018, establishing a new maintenance amount of $5,917 per month based on a base salary of $250,000 and 30% of additional income. Modification of Maintenance Petition: Edward filed a petition to modify maintenance in March 2020, arguing that Carolyn had not made good faith efforts to become self-supporting after their children were emancipated. He contended that the uncapped nature of the maintenance order provided Carolyn an undue advantage. Key Judgment: The court upheld the decision that no substantial change in circumstances existed to warrant a modification of maintenance. Edward's attempts to terminate or reduce support were denied, as the court found that the increases in his income were foreseeable and anticipated per prior agreements. Testimonies from both parties indicated that income from McDonald's stock options, which Edward exercised, was expected and fell under the calculations defined in the March 2, 2018 order. Court's Findings: The court noted that although Edward's income spiked to $2,130,000 in 2021, this increase was primarily due to exercising stock options earned before the modification agreement, thus not representing a substantial change. The court deemed both parties credible regarding their claims, and discrepancies in income figures presented were considered minor. Edward's assertion of confusion regarding his maintenance obligations was countered by his admissions of payment on bonuses and stock options. Legal Analysis: The court referred to prior case law indicating that a substantial change in circumstances must be significant and unforeseen. It affirmed that increases in income due to pre-existing agreements do not count as substantial changes. Conclusion: The circuit court ruled that Edward did not demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances justifying a modification of maintenance. The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, denying Edward's appeal.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Conklin

In re Marriage of Wheelock

Date Published: 6/12/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Moira L. Wheelock

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (2d) 240571-U, No. 2-24-0571 Date of Order: June 12, 2025

Background

This case is an appeal from the Circuit Court of Lake County regarding the dissolution of marriage between Moira L. Wheelock (Petitioner-Appellee) and David P. Wheelock (Respondent-Appellant). Their marriage was dissolved on April 26, 1999, incorporating a marital settlement agreement that stipulated David Wheelock would execute a Qualified Illinois Domestic Relations Order (QILDRO) to transfer 50% of his LAKE ZURICH FIRE PENSION balance to Moira, who had no pension benefits of her own.

Pension Allocation and QILDRO Issues

The trial court ruled that the pension was correctly allocated, despite David's claim for a corrected QILDRO since the original judgment did not specify allocation methods. Following a series of motions and payments that began upon David's retirement in 2015, Moira disputed the application of the 2001 QILDRO, claiming she was underpaid and entitled to adjustments based on case law.

Judicial Findings and Rulings

On July 6, 2023, the court denied David's motion for a corrected QILDRO and granted Moira's motion to enforce the existing QILDRO while recognizing her chronic underpayment. The court applied the Hunt formula for pension division, emphasizing that the original judgment did not provide a clear calculation method.

Res Judicata and Appeal

David argued that the doctrine of res judicata prevented re-litigation regarding the pension allocation due to the earlier 2001 QILDRO. However, the court affirmed that Moira's enforcement motion did not seek to reallocate the pension but to clarify the existing arrangements, thus not falling under res judicata. Subsequent appeals by David were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The case ultimately concluded with a QILDRO entered on August 28, 2024, stipulating a monthly payment of $1,909.25 to Moira.

Case Significance

This case illustrates the complexities of pension division in divorce proceedings, emphasizing the need for clear agreements and the court's authority to modify orders to align with original judgment intents when discrepancies arise.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Wheelock

In re Marriage of Lamb

Date Published: 6/4/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Rachel L. Lamb

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (4th) 241134-U
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District
Petitioner: Rachel L. Lamb
Respondent: Thad A. Lamb
Judgment Delivered By: Justice Doherty
Circuit Court: Greene County, No. 16D39, Honorable Daniel K. Wright, Judge Presiding

Background

Rachel and Thad L. Lamb divorced in October 2017 under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, with a marital settlement agreement (MSA) stipulating no child support due to equal parenting responsibilities for their two children. Rachel later filed for child support in February 2023, which was granted by the trial court in August 2024.

Legal Framework

Child support provisions may be modified under Section 510(a)(1) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, contingent upon proof of a substantial change in circumstances. The party seeking modification bears the burden of proof to identify such changes.

Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court granted Rachel's petition for child support, concluding that Thad's financial circumstances had significantly improved since their original divorce, despite his objections regarding the evidentiary support for this modification.

Appellate Court Findings

The Appellate Court disagreed with the trial court's conclusion, identifying a lack of evidence demonstrating a substantial change in Thad's financial situation since the decree. The court emphasized the absence of new evidence about his income adjustments, pointing out that Rachel was aware of Thad's compensation structure, including bonuses and rebates, prior to filing her petition. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, determining that the ruling was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Child Support Order Details

As part of the original MSA, the couple agreed to equal custody, with Thad responsible for maintaining health insurance for the children, while sharing medical, educational, and childcare costs.

Conclusion

The appellate court's reversal underscores the critical necessity of clear and substantial evidence to support claims for modifying child support agreements. This ruling reinforces adherence to existing decrees in the absence of demonstrable financial shifts since their establishment.

Note: This order is filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and serves as non-precedential except under specific circumstances as allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Lamb

In re Marriage of Riaz

Date Published: 6/3/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Amerah Riaz

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Case Number: 2025 IL App (1st) 241295-U
Date: June 3, 2025

Background

Petitioner Amerah Riaz and respondent Kashif Riaz were married for 11 years and have one child. After filing for divorce on March 1, 2017, they entered into a marital settlement agreement. The respondent, who suffered from severe medical conditions following a gunshot injury, failed to disclose a potential medical malpractice claim against Northwestern Hospital during the divorce proceedings.

Judgment

The appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Amerah's petition for a share of Kashif's medical malpractice settlement, which amounted to $3.85 million. This claim was categorized as an undisclosed marital asset, as it was not revealed during the dissolution proceedings.

Further Proceedings

The case has been remanded for further proceedings regarding the undisclosed asset. The trial court was found to have erred in its interpretation of the marital settlement agreement, particularly concerning asset disclosure and the waiver of rights to undisclosed assets.

Legal Considerations

The appellate court reviewed the dismissal under sections 2-615 and 2-619 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure, examining whether the complaint stated a cause of action and whether any defects could lead to dismissal. The court upheld that the medical malpractice claim was indeed a marital asset and emphasized the importance of full asset disclosure as stipulated in the marital settlement agreement.

Conclusion

The appellate court concluded that the respondent did not meet the burden of proving that the petitioner had waived her claim, resulting in the decision to reverse the trial court's order and remand for further proceedings regarding the allocation of the undisclosed marital asset. The case underscores the legal requirement for full disclosure in marital agreements and the repercussions of failing to do so.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Riaz

In re Marriage of Hooper

Date Published: 6/2/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 240446

Case Number: No. 1-24-0446
Date Filed: June 2, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Jennel Hooper
Respondent: Richard Olds III

Background

Hooper and Olds were married on October 15, 2011, and had two minor children. Hooper filed for divorce on October 27, 2015, which was finalized on June 16, 2017. The appeal relates to a parental responsibility order issued by the Circuit Court of Cook County on January 31, 2024, in Olds's presence but without Hooper. Following this, Hooper's attorney filed an emergency motion to vacate the order on February 28, 2024.

Appeal Proceedings

Hooper filed a pro se notice of appeal on March 1, 2024, which the court initially recognized on April 2, 2024, staying all parenting issue resolutions. The trial court found the emergency motion to vacate not urgent and extended the response deadline for Olds. The court independently entertained Hooper's appeal as Olds did not submit a brief by the required deadline, in accordance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 343(a).

Judgment

Decision: The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Reason: The court determined that Hooper's appeal was premature due to a pending postjudgment motion. The trial court had not ruled on this timely filed motion, thus the appeal could not be heard until the postjudgment issues were resolved, as stipulated by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 303.

Petitioner's Argument

Hooper contended that the trial court improperly assigned parental responsibility without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard. She emphasized the lack of an agreement regarding the parental responsibility order.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, reinforcing the requirement for a decision on the postjudgment motion before an appeal can proceed.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Hooper

In re Marriage of Lee

Date Published: 5/27/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241564 -U

Case Number: No. 1-24-1564
Date Filed: May 27, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellee: Antoinette Jameica Lee
Respondent-Appellant: Steven Jermaine Lee (also referred to as "Bro. S Lee Bey")
Lower Court: Circuit Court of Cook County (No. 21 D 8586)
Presiding Judge: Hon. D. Renee Jackson

Background

Petitioner and respondent were married on December 11, 1999, with the petitioner filing for dissolution of marriage on October 4, 2021. The respondent had initially engaged counsel, who withdrew on December 20, 2023. Subsequently, the petitioner filed for default on February 23, 2024, due to the respondent's non-response or failure to obtain new counsel.

Trial Court Finding

On July 3, 2024, after a trial, the court granted the petitioner’s dissolution petition in the absence of the respondent, citing inadequate representation and evidence presented. The respondent later filed a motion to vacate the judgment on July 29, 2024, claiming authority through an individual named Prophet Noble Drew Ali, however, this claim was dismissed due to lack of proper credentials.

Judgment

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, stating that the respondent failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate any errors in the lower court's decision. The appeal alleged that the trial court wrongfully entered "summary judgment" without addressing jurisdictional claims; however, the respondent's arguments lacked the requisite supporting documentation.

Jurisdictional Issues

The respondent raised questions regarding the court's jurisdiction over a private religious trust and alleged due process violations, which he claimed were unaddressed. However, these challenges were largely deemed forfeited due to non-compliance with Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341, as the respondent's arguments lacked cohesion and referenced unrecorded documents.

Legal Principles

The court clarified that only licensed attorneys may represent parties in legal matters, thus any motions filed by non-attorneys, including the motion to vacate, are treated as ineffective. The failure to provide a complete transcript or documentation from trial proceedings significantly hampered the respondent's ability to substantiate claims of error, affirming the lower court’s judgment per established legal standards.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court upheld the dissolution judgment, reinforcing the trial court's authority and the presumed correctness of its findings due to lack of comprehensive record from the appellant. In absence of evidence challenging the trial court's ruling, the judgment remains affirmed.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Lee

In re Marriage of Maloney

Date Published: 5/27/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241713 -U

Order Date: May 8, 2025
Case Numbers: No. 1-24-1713, 1-24-2175 (cons.)
Appellate Court: Illinois First District, Fourth Division

Case Parties

Petitioner: Anne Marie Maloney
Respondent: Edward J. Maloney
Circuit Court Information: Originated from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Case Number No. 16D8266, presided by Honorable Michael Forti.

Court's Findings

Judgment: Delivered by Justice Hoffman with concurrence from Presiding Justice Rochford and Justice Lyle. The court's order affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded the matter for further proceedings regarding attorney and guardian ad litem fees, with Edward required to contribute to these fees as per Section 508(b) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Background of the Case

The couple, married since April 1, 2006, filed for divorce in September 2016, with Howard Rosenberg appointed as guardian ad litem for their three children. The September 13, 2019 judgment granted Anne primary parenting time with Edward's visitation rights, conditional on his participation in reunification therapy.

Modification Petition

On February 6, 2020, Edward petitioned to increase his parenting time. Over multiple court hearings, the guardian ad litem recommended against the request, citing the children's best interests as a priority. Following Edward's testimony about therapy-related improvements, Anne moved for a directed finding against the modification, which the court eventually denied.

Fee Petition and Hearings

Anne filed a Fee Petition on February 4, 2022, for contributions to her legal expenses, which its resolution was affected by the court's decision to deny Edward's evidentiary hearing request regarding the fee petition. Subsequent hearings indicated Edward’s objections about billing excessive practices but did not allow for a formal review or cross-examination.

Conclusion on Appeals

The appeals were consolidated due to arguments concerning the improper requirement for Edward to cover Anne's fees under Section 508(b) and the denial of the evidentiary hearing on fee reasonableness. The appellate court found that the circuit court's failure to conduct an evidentiary hearing constituted an abuse of discretion, warranting a remand for further proceedings to establish proper attorney fees. Final Ruling: The appellate court upheld Anne's entitlement to contribute towards her attorney fees but vacated the fee award for further assessment, concluding affirmations in part and vacating others, with the case remanded.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Maloney

In re Marriage of Kidder-Nguyen

Date Published: 5/27/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Kidder-Nguyen

Case Information:

2025 IL App (3d) 240699 -U, Order filed: May 9, 2025, Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Parties:

Petitioner-Appellee: Sarah Kidder-Nguyen
Respondent-Appellant: Anh Nguyen

Background:

The parties married on February 5, 2011, and have two children, W.N. (born March 2013) and G.N. (born December 2014). Sarah filed for dissolution of marriage on June 30, 2023. The couple resided in Hinsdale, Illinois, with the children attending the University of Chicago Laboratory School until Sarah sought to enroll them in Fairmount Elementary School after relocating to Downers Grove.

Legal Proceedings:

The appeal arises from the Circuit Court of the 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County, with Judge Kenton J. Skarin presiding. The court appointed Andrew Cores as guardian ad litem for the children, and a bench trial was held from October 22 to 25, 2024.

Judgment:

The court affirmed the decision to enroll the children in Fairmount Elementary, stating that both parties had participated in school decision-making but found neutral grounds regarding their cooperation.

Trial Findings:

Cores prepared a report highlighting various factors, including children’s preferences and adjustment to various environments. Testimonies indicated the children faced significant commute challenges with early mornings and late returns while attending Lab. The court found the kids expressed some reluctance about the commute but also conveyed enjoyment of Lab School.

Financial Considerations:

Sarah's income was noted at $310,000, with significant financial obligations, including student loans and credit card debts. Anh had been building a consulting business with projected earnings between $350,000 to $450,000. The court found that both parents' financial situations rendered the tuition of Lab, which ranged from $40,000 to $42,000, unaffordable.

Parental Arguments:

Anh contested the court's decision to favor Fairmount over Lab, arguing that the children’s preferences were neutral and asserting that the distance and commuting challenges were incorrectly assessed. However, the circuit court deemed the factors concerning the children's needs and transportation challenges supported the decision to enroll them in a local school.

Final Judgment:

The Appellate Court found no error in the circuit court's determinations, upholding the judgment regarding the enrollment in Fairmount Elementary for the children's best interests.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Kidder-Nguyen

In re Marriage of Xinos

Date Published: 5/27/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Catherine Xinos

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 232326, No. 1-23-2326 Date Filed: May 6, 2025 Jurisdiction: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District Circuit Court: Cook County, No. 20 D 5471 Judge: Honorable Naomi H. Schuster

Background

The case involves the dissolution of marriage between Catherine Xinos (Petitioner-Appellee) and Michael Marino (Respondent-Appellant), who were married in 2016 and have two minor children. Catherine filed for dissolution in 2020, citing irreconcilable differences.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court classified all of Michael Marino's financial accounts as marital property following a bench trial. This classification arose from an examination of property disputed by both parties and underpinned by legal precedents regarding the classification of pre-marital versus marital assets.

Discovery Process and Motion in Limine

Catherine served interrogatories to Michael, who inadequately responded without producing relevant documents concerning his nonmarital properties. On the eve of trial, she filed a motion in limine, which was granted, barring Michael from presenting evidence regarding nonmarital property due to his failure to comply with discovery obligations.

Contentions on Appeal

Michael appealed, claiming the trial court erred by excluding his evidence related to nonmarital property and misclassifying his financial accounts. However, he did not adequately preserve arguments for review, as he failed to provide an offer of proof or explicitly contest the motion in limine.

Court's Judgment

The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s findings, agreeing that Michael did not present sufficient evidence to prove his financial accounts as nonmarital. Consequently, the accounts were classified as marital property and the distribution was determined as 75% to Michael and 25% to Catherine.

Legal Analysis

The Appellate Court highlighted that an adequate offer of proof for evidence excluded via a motion in limine is required to preserve such issues for appeal. Michael’s failure to comply with discovery rules and the absence of an offer of proof led to the forfeiture of his arguments regarding the nonmarital classification of accounts.

Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed, confirming the classification of Michael's accounts as marital property and the distribution settled at trial.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Xinos

In re Marriage of Sennebogen

Date Published: 5/27/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary

Case Reference: 2025 IL App (3d) 240439 -U Date Filed: May 12, 2025 Parties Involved: Yetta Sennebogen (Petitioner-Appellee) and Andrew Sennebogen (Respondent-Appellant).

Court Information

Circuit Court: 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County, Illinois Judge: The Honorable James F. McCluskey Appeal Numbers: Appeal No. 3-24-0439, Circuit No. 21-D-2321

Background

Yetta filed for dissolution of marriage on December 23, 2021, leading to the creation of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that Andrew signed on August 4, 2023. The MSA stipulated that Yetta would receive 100% of a $25,000 tax refund and a $2,000 reimbursement for living costs. The Judgment confirming the MSA was entered on October 31, 2023, making its terms binding.

Circuit Court Proceedings

Yetta filed a motion to enforce the MSA and obtained an order requiring Andrew to pay $12,500, half of the tax refund, which he complied with. However, subsequent disputes led Yetta to file an amended motion on February 13, 2024, asserting entitlement to additional payments resulting in a June 6 order for Andrew to pay $14,500, which he appealed on July 3, 2024.

Judicial Decision

The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's authority to enforce the MSA, rejecting Andrew's claims that the orders improperly modified the agreement. The court emphasized that the obligations under the MSA were clear and enforceable and did not introduce new terms.

Payment Obligations

The court found that Andrew was correctly obligated to pay Yetta not only $12,500 as part of the tax refund but also $2,000 in living expenses as detailed in Paragraphs 6.4 and 7.4 of the MSA. The court upheld that statements like "shall receive" and "is awarded" unambiguously entitle Yetta to these funds.

Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the circuit court's rulings, confirming the enforceability of the MSA without modification, and affirmed the Order requiring Andrew to fulfill his payment obligations, remanding the case for further enforcement proceedings.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Sennebogen

In re Marriage of Steidl

Date Published: 5/16/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary

Issues Presented: The court must determine whether the individual was indeed a Canadian citizen and if the circuit court made an error by denying the respondent's amended motion to reconsider with prejudice.

C. Circuit Court's Decision-Making Authority

The authority of the circuit court in this context will be evaluated in the following sections.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Steidl

In re Marriage of Garnhart

Date Published: 4/28/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Garnhart

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois Fourth District Case No: 2025 IL App (4th) 241511-U

Background

Meghan Garnhart appeals the Circuit Court of Winnebago County's denial to modify an order restricting her parenting time with her two daughters, presided by Judge Donald P. Shriver. This appeal follows contentious proceedings related to the dissolution of her marriage initiated by Justin Garnhart in 2017.

Case Proceedings

The parties have appeared in court multiple times, with a record exceeding 10,000 pages. In 2019, Judge Ronald A. Barch ruled to impose restrictions on Meghan's parenting time, requiring supervision based on concerns related to physical abuse and other misconduct. The respondent primarily represented herself during earlier proceedings but later retained counsel for the appeal.

Appellate Court Decision

The appellate court upheld the lower court's ruling, finding no error in denying the motion for modification of parenting time restrictions, reaffirming the necessity of supervision for the safety of the daughters.

Respondent's Arguments

Meghan Garnhart's appeal was based on several arguments:

The circuit court did not reference the relevant statute and factors in its decision.
A perceived lack of accountability incorrectly influenced the legal standard applied.
The wishes of her daughters regarding parenting time were improperly considered.
Her successful supervised parenting was misused as justification for continued supervision.
Testimony from her therapist was unjustly discredited.
A connection between her court conduct and her daughters' relationship was improperly established.
The evidence did not substantiate a modification of the current order.

Key Findings and Concerns

The appellate court noted that the respondent exhibited a pattern of abusive behavior, including physical and emotional abuse, and repeatedly violated court orders. Concerns centered around her previous conduct which negatively impacted her daughters and violated their emotional safety. The court emphasized that the respondent must demonstrate accountability for past actions to consider any future changes to parenting time restrictions.

Recommendations for Improvement

The Guardian ad Litem recommended that the court order evaluations for the respondent regarding mental health and substance abuse to ensure the children's ongoing safety. Despite moments of improvement noted by therapists involved, the court maintained that the respondent had yet to adequately address the underlying issues contributing to her prior behaviors.

Conclusion

The court affirmed its previous decision to uphold the parenting time restrictions, emphasizing the need for continued supervision to protect the well-being of the children. The court's findings stressed the importance of the children’s safety and stability over the respondent's wishes for unsupervised visitation.

Decision: Affirmed.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Garnhart

In re Marriage of Bonzani

Date Published: 4/16/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

CASE TITLE: In re Marriage of Phyllis Bonzani n/k/a Sporlein COURT: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District ORDER DATE: April 16, 2025 APPEAL #: 3-23-0793 CIRCUIT COURT #: 10-D-1062 JUDGE: Honorable Derek W. Ewanic

Background

The marriage of Phyllis and Robert Bonzani began in 1993, leading to the dissolution of their marriage in 2012. Initially, Robert was ordered to pay $3,000 monthly in child support and maintenance following a judgment modification in June 2014. Robert filed for bankruptcy in August 2016 and subsequently petitioned to reduce child support based on financial difficulties due to lost medical licensing. Over the years, the parties submitted various motions, with significant hearings held regarding child support obligations and maintenance extensions.

Judgment Summary

The trial court improperly dismissed Robert's petition to reduce child support and established a child support arrearage purge without a hearing. The dismissal was based on a belief that Robert's counsel would not adopt earlier pro se motions due to a lack of evidence supporting this assumption, which was ruled as speculative and unreasonable.

Court's Findings

The court noted that both Robert's earlier petitions regarding child support and his chances to respond were inadequately addressed. The decision to dismiss Robert's 2016 petition restricted his ability to seek retroactive relief, and counsel's request to amend the petition indicated it had potential merit. The court further stated that the reliance on speculative reasoning for dismissing the petition constituted an abuse of discretion.

Contempt and Sentencing

Robert was previously found in civil contempt for failing to pay child support, resulting in a purge amount set at $66,383.67. However, the court did not consider his financial status adequately during proceedings. Within the context of this appeal, Robert's counsel was allowed to withdraw, and the court set timelines for Robert to seek new representation, reinforcing the duty of attorneys to evaluate client motions.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court vacated the dismissal of Robert's petition and the related contempt ruling, instructing lower courts to further evaluate and resolve the child support issues effectively. The case is remanded for additional proceedings to address outstanding claims and ensure fair consideration of all motions.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bonzani

In re Marriage of Glod

Date Published: 4/11/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Jacek Glod

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District Case Number: 2025 IL App (1st) 240403, No. 1-24-0403 Order Filed: April 11, 2025 Division: Fifth Division

Background

Petitioner-Appellee Jacek Glod and Respondent-Appellant Marta Glod have been in prolonged disputes regarding child support obligations for their three minor children since their marriage dissolution in 2015.

Child Support and Modifications

In 2015, the circuit court determined Jacek's imputed monthly income at $8000, which included child support obligations. Jacek filed a motion in March 2020 for modification of this order, asserting that one child was living with him. The court granted the motion on August 6, 2020, terminating his child support payments. In subsequent hearings, the court ordered Marta to pay $407.30 monthly in child support and for Jacek to pay $807.30 monthly towards his arrears. Numerous pleadings were filed by both parties regarding alleged non-payments and modifications.

Orders and Appeals

Marta's motion for substitution of judge was denied, leading to an appeal. The appellate court ruled that such denial is not a final order and thus not subject to review, confirming that jurisdiction was lacking to hear the appeal regarding the substitutions and other non-final orders presented by Marta.

Further legal developments included a pretrial hearing on August 2, 2023, where other ongoing issues were continued to February 5, 2024, and later, on February 22, 2024, a ruling that reaffirmed the denial of the substitution of judge. The court emphasized the necessity to review its jurisdiction before considering any appeal, ultimately resulting in the appeal being dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction.

Final Outcome

The appeal is dismissed, concluding the litigation without a ruling on the merits of the initial dispute over child support obligations.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Glod

In re Parentage of Z.B.M.

Date Published: 4/9/2025

Tags: Marriage Parentage

Summary:

Case Summary: In Re Parentage of Z.B.M.

Case Citation: 2024 IL App (1st) 231988-U, No. 1-23-1988
Date: April 9, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Lower Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 2017 D 80489

Parties Involved:

Plaintiff-Appellant: Marc Bushala
Defendant-Appellee: Rebecca Joy McAdams
Additional Appellee: Rosenfeld/Farmer

Judgment:

Delivered By: Justice D.B. Walker
Concurrence: Justice Reyes and Justice Martin concurred.

Background:

Marc filed for divorce in 2015 and later began a relationship with Joy, resulting in the birth of Z.B.M. in 2016. Disputes arose regarding living arrangements and parenting time as Joy sought to relocate to LaGrange.

Fee Dispute:

The trial court awarded final attorney fees of $453,430.38 from Joy and mandated a contribution from Marc. In contesting the fee petition, Marc argued the application of the Illinois Parentage Act of 2015 prohibited contribution, and questioned the reasonableness of incurred attorney fees.

Trial Court Findings:

Joy's substantial income contrasted with Marc's higher income, leading the court to conclude that while Joy was financially strained, Marc had the means to contribute to her legal fees. The court mandated a contribution divided as 75% from Joy and 25% from Marc, totaling $340,072.78 and $113,357.60 respectively, reflecting each party's financial capabilities.

Appeal Overview:

Marc appealed, asserting that the court abused its discretion in ruling regarding fee contributions under section 503(j) of the Marriage Act. The appellate court found no misapplication of law, affirming the trial court's decision, and noted that Joy's previous legal actions did not negate her need for financial assistance.

Key Legal Context:

The case referenced the applicability of section 503(j) regarding attorney fee contributions in parentage actions, emphasizing that findings from prior cases, such as Rocca II, did not prohibit such contributions. Evidence regarding income, assets, and trial court discretion was critical in the determination of reasonable attorney fees.

Conclusion:

The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming the contribution to attorney fees, emphasizing that despite Marc's claims, the court adequately considered the economic circumstances of both parties.

Download PDF of In re Parentage of Z.B.M.

In re Marriage of Lugo

Date Published: 4/7/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Eric Lugo

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 231478
Appellate No: 1-23-1478
Date: April 7, 2025

Court Information

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Trial Court: Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
Judge: Honorable D. Renee Jackson

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellee: Eric Lugo
Respondent-Appellant: Carey Lugo

Background

This case concerns the dissolution of marriage between Eric and Carey Lugo under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Eric filed for divorce in April 2018 citing irreconcilable differences, seeking joint decision-making for their minor child A.L. and waiving child support and maintenance for both parties. The couple separated around 2014-2015, and proceedings faced delays due to Carey's non-compliance with discovery and changing counsel.

Order Overview

The trial court's dissolution judgment was affirmed based on several findings: Carey's sanctions for non-compliance with discovery under Supreme Court Rule 219; Eric established divorce grounds; and Carey's request for attorney fee contributions was denied.

Trial and Rulings

A bench trial commenced involving a guardian ad litem and numerous continuances. Key rulings from the trial court included:

Denial of maintenance to Carey.
Awarding Carey 30% of Eric's pension.
Denial of Carey's request for unsupervised parenting time.
Carey was required to pay 100% of parental supervision fees and 50% of A.L.'s healthcare expenses.

Significant Findings

Carey forfeited several challenge issues, including maintenance and income imputation, due to violations of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7). The trial court denied her arguments against the court’s findings regarding attorney fees and other financial responsibilities, asserting she provided no legal authority to support her claims.

Financial Overview

Both parties' finances were evaluated, with the court noting Eric had a stable income from his work as an electrician while Carey's financial status was affected by her past substance abuse issues and bankruptcy filing. Carey's request for contribution towards attorney fees was denied as the court found her financial circumstances could not substantiate a claim for financial support from Eric.

Subsequent Appeals

Carey's appeal against several rulings, including the denial for maintenance and financial contribution, was forfeited as she failed to comply with procedural rules and did not provide necessary citations. The court concluded with the affirmation of the original ruling.

Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed with no just reason for delay.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Lugo

In re Marriage of Zilligen

Date Published: 4/1/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (3d) 230529-U
Filing Date: April 1, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Judge: Honorable Richard D. Felice

Parties Involved

Petitioner/Appellant: Marjorie Zilligen
Respondent/Appellee: Jon Zilligen

Background

Marjorie and Jon Zilligen were married in October 1996 and have four emancipated children. Marjorie primarily managed the household while Jon focused on his career. In April 2018, Marjorie filed for dissolution, which was finalized in August 2019. Jon was ordered to pay Marjorie $5,500 per month in indefinite modifiable maintenance due to her lack of employability and medical issues. Following Jon's reduced income due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he filed for a modification of his maintenance obligations.

Modification Proceedings

Jon's maintenance payment was modified to $2,750 per month during a July 2021 hearing after an oral settlement was reached. Marjorie was required to reimburse Jon for previous overpayments and pay him $126,000 for his interest in the marital home. Jon's income fluctuated significantly following job changes, including a brief period of unemployment and subsequent part-time tutoring employment.

Financial Overview

As of March 2022, Marjorie's financial affidavit revealed significant monthly expenses that exceeded her income from maintenance, leading to depletion of savings. Meanwhile, Jon's financial situation also evolved, as he secured a higher-paying position and reported income exceeding pre-modification levels.

Contentions on Appeal

Marjorie appealed, asserting that the trial court misapplied the law by finding no substantial change in circumstances and failed to adequately consider the statutory guidelines during maintenance evaluations. She argued that Jon's increased income constituted a substantial change warranting a modification from the trial court.

Trial Court's Findings

The trial court ultimately found there was no substantial change justifying a further modification of maintenance. While acknowledging changes since the last modification order, the court ruled that the increase in Jon's income did not necessitate an increase in maintenance as Marjorie's financial position was considered adequate. The court's decision emphasized the importance of statutory maintenance factors and that the prior judge's findings should be respected.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision, affirming that it did not abuse its discretion in denying Marjorie’s petition for modification of maintenance.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Zilligen

In re Marriage of Bailey

Date Published: 4/1/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

Case Name: In re Marriage of Adrienne Bailey

Order Filed: April 1, 2025

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District

Appeal No: 3-24-0282

Circuit No: 21-D-2133, Du Page County

Presiding Judge: Richard D. Felice

Judgment Delivered By: Justice Peterson

Concurrence: Presiding Justice Brennan, Justice Anderson

Case Background

Adrienne and Joseph married on July 10, 2015, and had no children. Adrienne filed for dissolution on November 17, 2021, with a trial set for April 13, 2023. The trial lasted from April to September 2023. Joseph objected to Adrienne’s notice of intent to claim dissipation due to its last-minute submission and volume. Adrienne filed this notice on April 4, 2023, alleging over 200 transactions related to dissipation.

Key Findings

Dissipation Claim: The court erred by striking Adrienne's dissipation claim. It was deemed timely filed, despite the trial court's concerns about its fairness.
Property Classification: The court upheld the classification of the Garfield home as Joseph’s nonmarital property due to credible evidence, including inheritance claims.

Testimony and Evidence

During the trial, Joseph provided details about the sale of two inherited properties in Florida, with proceeds deposited into a Citibank account. He purchased the Garfield home for approximately $85,000 using nonmarital funds from this account. Joseph acknowledged the use of marital funds for attorney fees, asserting that they should not offset his estate share. The court determined that he successfully rebutted the marital property presumption regarding the Garfield property.

Court's Conclusion and Judgment Findings

The court ruled that Joseph’s financial actions did not constitute dissipation and affirmed that the classification of certain properties was reasonable based on the evidence presented. Adrienne was granted maintenance and was responsible for her own attorney fees.

Marital Asset Division and Appeal

The court divided the marital assets evenly and denied Adrienne's motion to reconsider concerning maintenance calculation and distribution discrepancies. Adrienne's appeal includes challenges to the court's decision on her dissipation claim, which she argues lacked rightful consideration.

Final Rulings

The appellate court found the trial court had erred by striking the notice of dissipation, reinstating it for further proceedings. Conversely, the classification of the Garfield property as nonmarital remained upheld. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for additional examination of the dissipation claims.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bailey

In re Marriage of Kriley

Date Published: 3/31/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re the Marriage of Paul Kriley

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 241923-U, No. 1-24-1923 Date of Decision: March 31, 2025

Court Information

Jurisdiction: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District Judge: Honorable Maritza Martinez

Parties Involved

Petitioner: Paul Kriley Respondent: Alena Kriley

Background

Paul and Alena Kriley were married in January 2016 and have a son, J.K., born in 2019. The marriage faced severe challenges, leading Paul to file for both an emergency and plenary order of protection against Alena in October 2020. Alena, originally from Belarus, filed a pro se petition for an emergency order of protection against Paul, initiating a prolonged legal battle. Throughout the proceedings, allegations of abusive behavior emerged from both parties, with multiple instances reported by Paul.

Court Proceedings

A seven-hour evidentiary hearing on August 30, 2024, involved testimonies from both parties, experts, and a Guardian ad Litem (GAL). Following this, the court upheld a two-year plenary order of protection against Alena and made findings of abuse that warranted the restrictions placed on her visitation status. Despite Alena’s appeals challenging the trial court's decisions, including alleged errors regarding the admission of evidence and the adequacy of findings made under the Domestic Violence Act (DVA), the appellate court affirmed parts of the lower court's rulings.

Ruling Summary

- **Affirmed:** The court upheld the admission of the doctor’s report and testimony, which supported findings of abuse by Alena towards both Paul and J.K. - **Vacated:** The previous order for supervised virtual visitation was vacated, with directions to reconsider the appointment of the GAL as the supervisor and the distribution of supervision costs. - **Remanded:** The case was sent back for further exploration of supervision arrangements and fees concerning Alena's visitations.

Additional Context and Developments

The court's order regarding visitation sessions was limited to three 30-minute virtual meetings per week with J.K., necessitating supervision due to concerns for his safety. During the proceedings, issues such as Alena's mental health history and allegations of harassment, including threats from Alena to Paul and his family, were pivotal to the court's findings. Alena's defense raised various arguments, including claims related to the admissibility of Dr. Smith's evaluation under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 215, the sufficiency of the court's findings under DVA, and the financial implications of supervision.

Conclusion

The appellate court’s decision reflects a complex interplay of family law and domestic violence considerations. As the case continues through further proceedings, the court aims to balance the welfare of J.K. with the need for appropriate safety measures and legal representation for all involved parties.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Kriley

In re Marriage of Singleton

Date Published: 3/31/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 231100 -U
Date: March 31, 2025
Case Number: No. 1-23-1100

Parties

Petitioner: Victoria Singleton
Respondent: Michael Singleton

Court Information

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Circuit Court: Cook County
Judge: Honorable Gregory E. Ahern

Background

Following a bench trial initiated by Victoria Singleton for marriage dissolution against Michael Singleton, the circuit court made several determinations regarding asset distribution and child support. Michael appealed, challenging the classification of his deferred compensation plan and the court's asset valuation approach.

Judgment Overview

The Appellate Court affirmed the valuation date for the deferred compensation plan and upheld the division of marital assets. The court noted that while Victoria's valuation of the marital residence and child support issues were affirmed, the previous ruling regarding Michael's non-marital interest necessitated revision and remand for clarifications.

Asset Distribution and Findings

- **Marital Asset Valuation:** The court validated Victoria’s property valuation and identified Michael’s salary, including pension contributions. - **Retirement Accounts:** The court distinguished non-marital property related to parts of Michael's retirement accounts, indicating marital and non-marital proportions based on employment history. - **Debts:** Victoria was assigned a substantial tax debt, impacted by the couple's separate tax filings. A debt repayment of $68,490.36 was imposed on Michael, allocated from his marital share.

Child Support and Expenses

Child support for their son, M.S., was addressed with the court reserving rights on further obligations. Both parties were equally responsible for shared childcare expenses, while specific tuition payments were assigned to Michael.

Appeal Process and Court Findings

Michael's appeal argued inconsistencies in asset valuation and disputed calculations used for child support. The appellate court agreed some claims lacked sufficient documentation, complicating the review process. Nevertheless, it found that Michael's claims regarding the valuation date were valid, mandating the lower court to ensure consistency as emphasized in related prior rulings.

Conclusion

The Court affirmed parts of the lower court's judgment but remanded for precise clarifications on the non-marital interests and equitable distribution of marital assets, confirming that judicial discretion must adhere to statutory guidelines in property division.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Singleton

In re Marriage of Ibrahim

Date Published: 3/28/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: Ayna Mantyyeva v. Wasif Ibrahim

Case Number: No. 1-23-0146
Date Filed: March 28, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Circuit Court: Cook County
Presiding Judge: Honorable Geri Pinzur Rosenberg

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellant: Wasif Ibrahim
Respondent-Appellee: Ayna Mantyyeva
Plaintiffs-Appellees: Goldentree Properties, LLC & Ayna Mantyyeva
Defendant-Appellant: Wasif Ibrahim
Third-Party Defendant-Appellee: Enejan Mantyyeva

Background

Ayna and Wasif married in 2017, during which Ayna received a financial gift from her father to invest in two companies, Lux Management, LLC and Goldentree Properties, LLC. Wasif did not contribute capital to Goldentree and filed for divorce in 2019. Legal actions ensued regarding misappropriation of funds, leading to Wasif's unauthorized withdrawal of $40,000 from Goldentree.

Trial Court Decisions

The trial court consolidated multiple cases, ruling that Ayna's interests in Lux and Goldentree were her non-marital property. Wasif was ordered to repay $40,000 to Goldentree for misappropriation, and the court affirmed Ayna's entitlement to proceeds from both companies. Child support payment of $188 per month was mandated from Wasif, with his income imputed at $7,500.

Key Findings and Rulings

The trial court found Ayna's investment as non-marital property, classifying all funds as stemming from her father’s gift, not marital assets.
Wasif failed to substantiate claims regarding his business interests and income, with the court affirming decisions made on counts related to his supposed membership in Goldentree, which he lacked.
The ruling on the motion in limine upheld the exclusion of Wasif’s undisclosed evidence and financial documents, as he did not meet discovery requirements.
Final Verdict affirms the trial court's decisions on issues regarding the classification of property and financial accountability, concluding Wasif treated Lux as a personal account.

Conclusion

The Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling due to a lack of credible evidence supporting Wasif’s claims and affirmed the judgments regarding property classification, financial obligations, and child support responsibilities.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Ibrahim

In re Marriage of Zisook

Date Published: 3/26/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U
Date: March 26, 2025
Case Number: No. 1-22-1834

Parties

Petitioner: Albert Zisook (Appellant/Cross-Appellee)
Respondent: Nitza Zisook (Appellee/Cross-Appellant)
Circuit Court: Cook County, Case No. 13 D 10585
Judge: Rosa Maria Silva

Judgment

Delivered by: Justice Howse
Concurrence: Presiding Justice Van Tine and Justice Ellis
Outcome: The circuit court's judgment is affirmed.

Background

In 2013, Albert Zisook filed for divorce from Nitza Zisook, culminating in a divorce judgment and settlement agreement issued in 2015. The 2015 Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) included provisions for deferred compensation, requiring the petitioner to pay the respondent 50% of distributions received from his former employer, Citadel, LLC.

Key Findings

Marital Settlement Agreement: The clause regarding the payment of 50% of future deferred compensation is clear and applies strictly to marital property.

Legal Actions

Following the MSA, a Verified Petition for Indirect Civil Contempt was filed by the respondent in 2019 due to the petitioner's non-compliance with the divorce judgment concerning the deferred compensation payments received on disputed dates.

Trial Court Decisions

On July 1, 2022, the court ruled that the petitioner must pay half of the February 2, 2018, deferred payment, totaling $82,339, while denying claims for 2019 payments as non-marital property. The trial court also granted the respondent attorney fees linked to the contempt proceedings, totaling $8,238.75.

Appeals and Remaining Issues

Both parties filed appeals; Albert Zisook sought to dismiss the respondent’s cross-appeal, which was initially filed late but was later granted leave to file. On March 14, 2024, the court upheld the trial court’s decisions regarding the MSA interpretation and affirmed the judgment. The issue of attorney fees linked to enforcing the dissolution agreement was noted as potentially forfeited on appeal.

Jurisdiction After Petitioner's Death

Following the petitioner's death in July 2023, the court determined its jurisdiction over the appeals remained valid as the rights under the MSA persisted through heirs and executors. A stay of proceedings was granted, but motions were later filed to lift the stay and address implications of the petitioner’s death on pending appeals.

Final Summary

The court concluded that the respondent’s argument regarding the MSA strictly delineating shared future payments was sound but did not extend to payments received after the divorce. The trial court's ruling affirming the categorization of certain deferred compensation payments as marital property was upheld, while the respondent achieved partial success with the judgment of $22,167.50 for compliance with the MSA terms.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Zisook

In re Marriage of Siddiqui

Date Published: 3/24/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: Erum Siddiqui v. Nabeel Noor

This case involves a child support and parenting time dispute following the dissolution of marriage between Erum Siddiqui and Nabeel Noor. The couple was married on August 19, 2016, and they have one child, Z.N., born in 2018. The mother filed for divorce on November 22, 2019, while the father resided in Maryland, and then moved to Illinois in 2020 seeking more parenting time.

Order Details

Date Filed: March 24, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Appeal No: 3-22-0355
Circuit No: 19 D 2222
Judge: Honorable Susan L. Alvarado

Judgment Highlights

Delivered By: Justice Holdridge
Concurrences: Justice Hettel concurred; Presiding Justice Brennan specially concurred.

Key Findings

The circuit court's findings on child support were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
The court did not abuse discretion in denying retroactive child support.
The mother was required to share unpaid tax debts and pay for attorney fees related to parenting time disputes.

Child Support and Financial Responsibilities

The trial court's child support determination involved the father's obligation, which was set at $486.93 monthly based on his income of $18,600 monthly and $750 for health insurance costs. The court mandated shared responsibility for tax liabilities from 2017 to 2020, considering them marital debt. Moreover, the court ordered that each party bears their own attorney fees, with the mother covering fees due to her misuse of parenting time.

Parenting Time Allocation

The father was granted parenting time every Tuesday from noon until Wednesday at noon, along with alternating weekends. The parties agreed to reasonable extended summer parenting time and alternate holidays, but there were disputes about the father's claimed 161 annual overnights, which he asserted during trial despite conflicting evidence.

Motions for Reconsideration

Both parties filed motions to reconsider some of the court's decisions, but the court denied these motions, affirming the findings regarding the overnights and ruling against retroactive support due to the father's unemployment history.

Appeal Details

The mother appealed the court’s decisions, arguing errors in child support calculations and financial responsibilities. The appellate court affirmed part of the lower court's decisions, reversed the child support calculation, and remanded for recalculations while upholding children's overnight distributions based on law and precedent.

Final Decision

The appellate court's decision is affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Siddiqui

In re Marriage of Stephens

Date Published: 3/20/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Information

Case Name: In re the Marriage of Myra Stephens Case Number: 2025 IL App (1st) 242519-U Date Filed: March 20, 2025 Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Judicial Overview

Judges: Presiding Justice Rochford, Justices Hoffman and Ocasio Initial Court: Circuit Court of Cook County Judge: Honorable Bradley Trowbridge

Background and Marriage Overview

Petitioner Myra Stephens filed for dissolution of marriage from Respondent Bradford Stephens after their marriage on June 10, 2007. They have one child. Petitioner operates a business, Beakers & Bottles, earning $138,169 in 2023, while Respondent is a software engineer at ServiceTitan with a salary of $300,000, including significant restricted stock units (RSUs).

Case Summary

Petitioner sought an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) on August 26, 2024, to prevent Respondent from liquidating his retirement accounts or incurring additional debt related to the marital estate. The court initially granted the TRO but later erroneously converted it into a preliminary injunction without holding the necessary evidentiary hearing, which was contested by the Respondent. On December 9, 2024, the court permitted an injunction but failed to conduct any swearing of witnesses or admission of exhibits.

Allegations of Financial Misconduct

Petitioner accused Respondent of depleting marital assets, including withdrawing funds from retirement accounts and taking predatory loans, all while purportedly managing his RSUs improperly. Respondent contested these claims, arguing that withdrawals were necessary for legal expenses and disputing the valuation of his RSUs.

Legal Proceedings

Throughout the proceedings, Respondent argued against the validity of the claims for injunctive relief, emphasizing that Petitioner had not established irreparable harm or an absence of adequate legal remedies. The court ultimately vacated the December 9, 2024, order regarding the preliminary injunction, remanding the case for an immediate evidentiary hearing to adequately address the contested issues surrounding the marital estate.

Next Steps

The case is set for immediate evidentiary hearing to resolve the outstanding disputes regarding temporary restraining orders and the valuation of RSUs and the marital estate, ensuring proper legal procedures are followed moving forward.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Stephens

In re Marriage of Liu

Date Published: 3/20/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Meng Liu

Case Number: 2025 IL App (5th) 241199-U
Appellate Court: Illinois Fifth District

Background

Meng Liu and Jonathan Cox were married on August 8, 2013, and have two children: C.C. (born August 2014) and R.C. (born April 2016). Liu filed for dissolution of marriage on May 1, 2018.

Trial Details

A bench trial occurred on April 18, April 19, and June 17, 2024, with related orders filed in the court docket.

Judgment and Parenting Responsibilities

On July 3, 2024, the trial court determined parental responsibilities, allowing the mother four consecutive weeks of summer parenting time, including travel to China, while the father received two uninterrupted weeks. The court mandated cooperation on submitting passport applications for their children.

Subsequent Motions

Cox sought to vacate the passport order on July 18, 2024, and to modify the parenting plan on August 12, 2024, while Liu filed a motion for Cox to sign passport applications on September 2, 2024. A hearing on October 10, 2024, resulted in Cox's motions being denied and Liu's motion being granted, requiring passport applications to be completed by November 6, 2024.

Appeal Process

Cox filed a notice of appeal on November 1, 2024, regarding the October ruling. By November 15, 2024, the court signaled the docket would be accelerated. The record on appeal was due by December 6, 2024, but Cox's motion to stay was denied on December 17, 2024.

Dismissal Motion and Brief Compliance

Liu filed a motion for dismissal on January 13, 2025, citing failure to provide the record. The trial court ordered the record to be filed, which was completed by February 6, 2025. The appellant's brief, due on February 27, 2025, was noncompliant due to missing elements as required by Illinois Supreme Court Rules 341 and 342, leading to a show cause order on February 28, 2025. A late brief was submitted without court permission on March 7, 2025, along with an appendix on March 12, 2025.

Review Outcome and Conclusion

The appellate court deemed the brief inadequate as it lacked legal citations and failed to articulate coherent arguments regarding the trial court's decisions on parenting time. As a result, the appeal was dismissed due to noncompliance with procedural rules.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Liu

In re Marriage of Okere

Date Published: 3/18/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Stella Okere

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District
Case Number: 2025 IL App (1st) 241189-U
Date: March 18, 2025
Parties: Stella Okere (Petitioner-Appellee) vs. Kevin Okere (Respondent-Appellant)
Circuit Court: Cook County, Case No. 18 D 630164
Judge: Honorable Bonita Coleman

Judgment Overview

Decision: The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's decision.
Key Findings:

The trial court properly exercised its discretion in imposing fines on the respondent and their attorney due to noncompliance with court orders.
The court had previously vacated an indirect civil contempt finding against the respondent, indicating a focus on ensuring compliance rather than punitive measures.
Fines of $2,000 were imposed, stemming from failures to appear for court hearings and willful disregard of court orders.

Background

Petition for Dissolution: Stella Okere filed for divorce on April 21, 2021, against Kevin Okere. A judgment of dissolution was entered on the same day, with provisions for the sale of their shared real estate.
Contempt Allegations: On November 2, 2023, Stella filed a petition for a rule to show cause against Kevin for indirect civil contempt due to his refusal to cooperate in selling the marital home as specified in the dissolution judgment.

Proceedings and Attendance Issues

Initial Findings: The trial court initially found both the respondent and attorney in indirect civil contempt for failing to attend court hearings. A hearing was scheduled for February 14, 2024, but was delayed due to the death of the petitioner’s prior attorney. During the proceedings, both parties were required to attend in person.

Hearing Outcomes

Attendance Noncompliance: The respondent's attorney notified the court of the respondent's inability to attend a May 7, 2024, hearing, citing a doctor's appointment. Neither appeared at previous hearings, establishing a pattern of noncompliance.
Court's Rulings: The court held the respondent and attorney in indirect civil contempt, concluding that their absence was willful and obstructive to justice, affirming sanctions as necessary for compliance.

Respondents' Argument on Relief

Motion for Reconsideration: The respondent filed motions to vacate the contempt order and reconsider the sanctions, arguing that the fines were punitive rather than coercive despite the trial court's intent to ensure compliance with their rulings. The trial court ultimately upheld the imposed fines, emphasizing the necessity of in-person attendance for future proceedings.

Legal Analysis of Sanctions

Inherent Authority: The trial court possesses the inherent authority to impose sanctions for noncompliance to maintain order and efficiency in proceedings. The imposition of fines aims to compel compliance, not serve as punishment for past conduct.
Evaluation Standards: Courts must evaluate the appropriateness of sanctions against the manifest weight of evidence, ensuring that actions align with legal precedents and minimize undue delays in case resolutions.

Conclusion

The appellate court's decision reaffirmed the trial court's authority to issue sanctions and maintain compliance, supporting the judgment rendered in this case.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Okere

In re Marriage of Moehring

Date Published: 3/12/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Brendan H. Moehring

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (2d) 240071-U, No. 2-24-0071, Order filed March 12, 2025 Background: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kendall County between Petitioner Brendan H. Moehring and Respondent Ann L. Moehring, presided by Hon. Jody P. Gleason. The marriage was dissolved in March 2021, with both parties agreeing to equally share college expenses for their daughter, Elle, starting in 2020.

Issues and Findings

The court upheld the contempt finding against Ann for failing to pay summer 2022 tuition, which was confirmed through submitted evidence, and ruled that Ann's refusal was driven by a desire to control communications with Elle.
Conversely, the court reversed the contempt finding regarding fall 2022 tuition, concluding Ann had paid the owed amount.
Additionally, the court found that the trial court erroneously included spring 2023 tuition and related expenses in the purge amount calculation and failed to credit Ann for a $4,434 tuition refund received in March 2022.
The trial court also incorrectly mandated consent forms for parent access to Elle’s grades, which violated statutory requirements under section 513(f) of the Illinois statute.

Arguments

Ann argued against the contempt ruling, citing improper calculations of owed amounts, lack of clarity in the divorce judgment regarding payment timelines, and disputing the necessity of receipts and proof for living expenses. The court dismissed these claims, asserting merit in the evidence presented by Brendan.

Judgment and Remand

The court affirmed, reversed, and vacated portions of the trial court's order and remanded for further action, specifically to:

Amend the purge amount to $1,173.71 regarding summer 2022 tuition.
Ensure all parties sign necessary consent forms for access to Elle's academic information.
Conduct new hearings for determining appropriate attorney’s fees.

Conclusion

The circuit court's judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part, with directions to follow proper statutory guidelines and ensure compliance with all parties involved in Elle’s education expenses.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Moehring

In re Marriage of Andrea M.R.

Date Published: 3/10/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Andrea M.R. vs. David R.S.

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District Case No: 2025 IL App (5th) 231280-U Decision Date: March 10, 2025 Trial Court: St. Clair County, No. 17-D-968, Honorable Tameeka L. Purchase

Background

Andrea M.R. (Mother) and David R.S. (Father) divorced in December 2017 after four years of marriage, sharing two sons, H.S. and A.S. Following their divorce, they initially agreed to equal parenting time and shared decision-making responsibilities. This arrangement faced challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly regarding A.S.'s health and medical treatments.

Recent Developments

In February 2022, Mother filed multiple motions, including contempt against Father and requests for exclusive health decision-making, citing issues with Father's participation in children's schooling and overall compliance with court orders. After hearings, the trial court modified the parenting arrangement to favor Mother.

Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's modifications regarding parenting time and decision-making, emphasizing alignment with the evidence presented in court.

Key Issues and Findings

The case involved significant considerations related to the children's health management and emotional well-being, with both parents demonstrating conflict over decision-making. The court documented concerns about emotional distress experienced by the children, especially during their time with Father. Notably:

Mother's motions frequently cited Father's failure to adhere to medical directives and inconsistent communication practices.
Increased allegations of emotional abuse during parenting time raised questions about the children's safety.
The effectiveness of counseling and the children's expressed fears regarding Father's behavior were crucial factors.
The parenting dynamic was characterized by a lack of joint cooperative efforts, resulting in the court concluding that shared decision-making was unworkable.

Final Court Orders

The court determined that Mother should have sole decision-making responsibilities concerning health, education, and extracurricular activities, while joint responsibilities concerning religion would be maintained. A substantial change in circumstances warranted this division, with the court emphasizing that both parents must foster positive relationships while avoiding derogatory remarks about each other in the children's presence.

Future Directions

The court mandated that both parents utilize the Our Family Wizard application for effective communication regarding the children’s schedules and needs, underlining the importance of establishing a stable environment for H.S. and A.S.

Conclusion

The appellate court upheld the decisions of the trial court, affirming the modifications to parental responsibilities and parenting time, while recognizing the need for child-focused solutions in contentious custody settings.

This order is filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in specific situations as outlined in Rule 23(e)(1).

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Andrea M.R.

In re Marriage of Culm

Date Published: 3/4/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Geoffrey Culm

Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 240566, No. 1-24-0566 Date Filed: March 4, 2025 Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District Appeal From: Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 16 D 1362 Presiding Judge: Honorable Renee G. Goldfarb Parties: - Petitioner-Appellant: Geoffrey Culm - Respondent-Appellee: Alice Culm (née Hawman) Judgment: Affirmed by Presiding Justice Van Tine, with concurrence from Justices Howse and Ellis.

Background

Geoffrey and Alice married in 1994 and have two adult sons. In 2016, Geoffrey filed for divorce based on irreconcilable differences, which was finalized on March 30, 2017, including a maintenance agreement stipulating payments of 25% of Geoffrey's annual income, capped at $125,000 per year for 15 years, subject to termination upon Alice's cohabitation in a conjugal relationship.

Petition to Terminate Maintenance

In December 2021, Geoffrey filed a petition to terminate maintenance payments, alleging Alice was in a de facto marriage with Michael Kolander. The petition detailed their relationship, including cohabitation claims, with Geoffrey asserting that Alice and Michael have shared living arrangements and significant time together. Alice countered this with a motion to dismiss under section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure, referencing section 510(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which governs maintenance termination.

Trial Proceedings

A bench trial occurred in October and November 2023. Despite testimonies from Alice and others, including her sons, indicating their understanding of the relationship as casual and lacking marriage-like features, the court ultimately found insufficient evidence to classify the relationship as a de facto marriage. The trial court highlighted the absence of cohabitation, shared financial responsibilities, or meaningful family integration.

Key Evidence and Findings

- **Relationship Dynamics:** Alice and Michael's relationship fluctuated, characterized more as dating rather than a consistent marriage-like bond. - **Co-habitation Analysis:** Despite spending significant time together and attending social events, the court found no proof of cohabitation as per common understanding. - **Financial Independence:** No shared financial accounts existed between Alice and Michael, reinforcing the lack of a partnership typical of a de facto marriage. - **Family Interactions:** Michael had minimal interactions with Alice's family, further suggesting the absence of a committed relationship.

Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling, asserting that Geoffrey failed to prove a de facto marriage existed between Alice and Michael, thus justifying the denial of his petition to terminate maintenance payments. The ruling is consistent with legal precedents indicating a requirement for clear indicators of cohabitation and partnership for maintenance termination claims to hold.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Culm

In re Marriage of Beltran

Date Published: 2/25/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (3d) 240064 -U
Order Date: February 25, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellant: Jacob Beltran
Respondent-Appellee: Caitlin Beltran
Judge: Honorable Richard D. Felice

Background

Jacob and Caitlin were married for over ten years before Jacob filed for divorce on January 20, 2022, citing infidelity and other issues. They have three children, including a 9-year-old son and two daughters aged 8 and 1.

Jacob, a former police officer, began a relationship with Tina while still married to Caitlin. He left the police department and ultimately married Tina in November 2021, further complicating the dissolution process.

Judgment Summary

The appellate court affirmed that:

The trial court's distribution of the marital estate was within its discretion.
Awarding the marital residence to Caitlin was appropriate due to Jacob's dissipation of assets.
Jacob's imputed income was set at $106,000 for maintenance and child support based on historical earnings rather than current income.

Dissipation Claims

Caitlin claimed Jacob dissipated at least $174,406 from marital assets, asserting these expenditures occurred during the marriage's breakdown, with evidence including credit card transactions and Jacob's lifestyle changes. The court determined Caitlin presented a prima facie case, leading to a finding that Jacob dissipated $150,082.43 in marital funds.

Trial Court Findings

The trial court emphasized Jacob's evasive testimony and sided with Caitlin on matters of credibility. It awarded Caitlin the marital residence, valued at $350,000, noting Jacob's significant debts due to loans and credit card liabilities not disclosed during the proceedings.

Financial Transactions and Assets

Jacob engaged in various financial transactions, including withdrawing funds from retirement accounts and securing substantial loans without proper disclosure. The court scrutinized these transactions as signs of potential dissipation. Jacob's lifestyle was marked by significant expenses, including luxury items funded through Tina, without proper declaration in his financial disclosures.

Parenting Allocations

The court established a parenting schedule favoring Caitlin, with Jacob receiving limited visitation rights. Caitlin was deemed the primary custodian, reinforcing the need to maintain stability for the children post-divorce.

Attorney Fees

Caitlin's petition for interim attorney fees was denied due to a lack of assets available to cover those expenses, despite significant legal costs incurred during the proceedings.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the appellate court upheld the trial court's judgment regarding asset distribution, the findings of dissipation, and the imputation of Jacob's income. Jacob's appeal challenging these aspects was rejected.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Beltran

In re Marriage of Cina

Date Published: 2/20/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:
```html

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Alma Cina

Case Number: 2025 IL App (3d) 230121-U Filing Date: February 20, 2025 Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. McJoynt Appeal Reference: Appeal No. 3-23-0121, Circuit No. 21-D-702

Background

Alma and Ilir Cina were married in 1996 after initially meeting when Alma was a minor. The couple had three children from 1998 to 2005. Alma left their family home in March 2021 and filed for divorce, asserting claims regarding ownership of their home based on Ilir's promises and various contributions she had made to the household.

Trial Court Rulings and Findings

The trial court upheld Alma’s claims, granting her a one-fourth interest in the family home via promissory estoppel, allowing her to proceed with claims including marital property classification and unjust enrichment (dismissed). Furthermore, Ilir was ordered to compensate her for the missing jewelry valued at $5,700 and $40,000 cash missing from safes.

Promissory Estoppel

The appellate court acknowledged the findings of the trial court, which established that Ilir made unambiguous promises about the home ownership in exchange for marriage, which Alma relied upon. The court ruled that Alma met the necessary elements for a promissory estoppel claim and concluded her injury stemmed from this reliance.

Damages and Ownership Interests

Alma's total contributions towards the home were estimated at $364,185.75. However, the court determined awarding this amount was inequitable and instead granted her a one-fourth ownership interest, alongside a monetary order for Ilir to pay her $106,250 or sell the property within 45 days.

Evidence and Testimony

The trial included testimony from various parties regarding the family's financial contributions and the promises made concerning the home. Ilir denied any obligations and asserted discrepancies regarding missing cash and jewelry, but the court gave considerable weight to Alma's evidence and testimony, supporting claims of responsibility for the missing property.

Court's Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, including the findings of Ilir's responsibility for the missing cash and jewelry, and dismissed claims concerning the statute of frauds as it wasn't properly raised. The court's ruling reflects a commitment to achieving justice in light of the presented evidence and testimony. ```

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Cina

In re Parentage of M.A.

Date Published: 2/18/2025

Tags:

Summary:
```html

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 232071 -U

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First Judicial District Date Filed: February 18, 2025 Case Number: 1-23-2071

Parties Involved

Petitioner-Appellant: M. A. Respondent-Appellant: A. A.

Background

This case involves a child custody dispute governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The parties share two children, born in 2015 and 2021. Initially living in New York, they moved to Chicago in March 2022. Following a mental health hospitalization in August 2023, the petitioner lost custody, and the children remained with the respondent in New York. In August 2023, a petition was filed in the Family Court of Queens, New York. The New York court appointed legal representatives and facilitated custody investigations. Concurrently, the petitioner filed a "Petition for Allocation of Parental Rights and Responsibilities" in Cook County, asserting Illinois as the home state and citing concerns of abuse by the respondent.

Ruling

The circuit court opted not to exercise jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens, deeming New York a more suitable forum. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision. Key factors influencing the court's ruling included the children's residency, evidence location, connections to New York, and financial burdens of attending court in New York, which could impact the petitioner's ability to participate effectively in the proceedings.

Jurisdiction Considerations

The court noted Illinois as the home state under UCCJEA provisions but recognized that New York had considerable connections to the case. The children lived in New York for extended periods, influencing the jurisdiction decision. The trial court's discretion was upheld, evaluating factors outlined in section 207(b) of UCCJEA, including the children's living situation, safety concerns, and the practicalities of conducting the case.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County was affirmed, with the appellate court finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination to decline jurisdiction in favor of New York. ```

Download PDF of In re Parentage of M.A.

In re Parentage of D.C.

Date Published: 2/10/2025

Tags: Parentage

Summary:
```html

Case Overview

Title: In re Parentage of D.C.
Case Number: 2025 IL App (1st) 2 40904 -U No. 1-24-0904
Order Filed: February 10, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Background

Petitioner Herman Roundtree initiated a parentage action for minor D.C. against deceased respondent Shoshanna Cooper. Following Cooper's death in December 2021, her mother, LaVerne Cooper, filed for grandparent visitation. The case was consolidated with Cooper's probate issue in August 2022. A guardian ad litem (GAL) was appointed to evaluate visitation claims.

Legal Issues

Roundtree appealed the denial of his motion to disqualify the GAL, asserting the ruling was erroneous. However, the appellate court dismissed the appeal, citing lack of jurisdiction as the April 17, 2024 order was non-final.

Key Developments

- September 2019: Roundtree filed a pro se petition for parentage.
- December 2019: The court acknowledged Roundtree and Cooper as legal parents to D.C.
- April 2023: LaVerne petitioned for grandparent visitation after previous visitation rights were dismissed in January 2023.
- November 2023: The court appointed GAL Ashanti Madlock Henderson, who prepared a report despite Roundtree's opposition claiming bias.
- January 2024: A court order mandated Roundtree to make D.C. available to the GAL, and subsequent orders directed visitation arrangements.

Jurisdictional Review

The court determined jurisdiction must be assessed irrespective of the petitioner's submissions. The April 17, 2024 order did not meet the requirements of a final judgment under Rule 301 and was not appealable under Rule 304 due to unresolved claims.

Conclusion

The appeal regarding the non-final order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, underscoring the petitioner’s obligation to comply with Illinois Supreme Court rules as a pro se litigant. ```

Download PDF of In re Parentage of D.C.

In re Marriage of Morton

Date Published: 1/24/2025

Tags:

Summary:
```html

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 240777-U

Parties:

Duane Morton (Petitioner-Appellee) vs. Berretdus T. Morton (Respondent-Appellant)

Court:

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Order Date:

January 24, 2025

Judge:

The Honorable Ericka Orr

Background:

Duane and Berretdus Morton divorced in 2007, with the dissolution judgment requiring both parents to maintain life insurance policies of at least $25,000 for their children until they turned 23. Additionally, Berretdus was directed to maintain a life insurance policy on Duane's life, naming the children as beneficiaries.

Petitions and Court Actions:

In early 2024, Duane, gravely ill, sought to enforce the beneficiary designation for the policies, prompting a court finding of contempt against Berretdus due to her non-compliance. Following Duane's death in April 2024, the court ordered the insurance proceeds to be placed in Berretdus's attorney’s trust account while also mandating her to repay any loans against the policy and cover Duane III's attorney’s fees.

Issues on Appeal:

Berretdus appealed, arguing against the requirement to keep her children as beneficiaries past age 23 and challenging the attorney's fee award.

Ruling:

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions, concluding that Berretdus had an ongoing obligation regarding the life insurance policy under the dissolution judgment. It noted that the judgment's language did not support her claim that the requirement lapsed at age 23, as the specific obligation to maintain the Jackson National policy with the children as beneficiaries remained enforceable regardless of their age.

Legal Analysis:

The court emphasized the necessity to interpret the dissolution judgment as a whole, maintaining all provisions and avoiding nullification. The argument that certain sections of the judgment conflicted was rejected, affirming the enforceable nature of Berretdus's obligation. Furthermore, the trial court's discretion in awarding attorney’s fees was upheld, as Berretdus did not demonstrate a compelling cause for her non-compliance.

```

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Morton

In re Marriage of Kayla T.

Date Published: 1/15/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Overview

The case 2025 IL App (4th) 240952-U, NO. 4-24-0952, pertains to the In re Marriage of Kayla T., n/k/a Kayla F. (Petitioner-Appellee) and Zachary T. (Respondent-Appellant), stemming from the Circuit Court of Adams County, Case No. 20D181, presided by Honorable Holly J. Henze.

Background and Initial Findings

Zachary and Kayla married on October 15, 2015, and have two children, Vin. T. (born April 2017) and Viv. T. (born October 2018). Following Kayla's emergency order of protection on September 21, 2020, she obtained exclusive possession of their home and temporary custody of the children. Kayla filed for dissolution of marriage on September 30, 2020, seeking majority parenting time, leading to an interim order on December 14, 2020 that allowed Zachary supervised parenting time.

Parenting Time Dispute

Zachary argued for majority parenting time, claiming he is the primary caretaker and has support from family. The trial court issued its judgment on January 28, 2021, reserving parenting time allocation, followed by the appointment of guardian ad litem (GAL) Drew Erwin on February 1, 2021. Erwin's report raised concerns about Zachary's marijuana use and mental health, recommending specific parenting time restrictions to ensure the children's safety during his visits.

Trial Testimonies and Court Findings

The GAL's recommendations, which included unsupervised weekend parenting time for Zachary and conditions on marijuana use, were presented during a six-day hearing from January 9 to February 9, 2024. Testimonies from behavior analysts, teachers, and family members highlighted Zachary's recurrent tardiness in dropping off the children, as well as concerns regarding his marijuana use and its impact on the children's well-being.

Trial Court's Ruling

The trial court ultimately found in favor of Kayla regarding parenting time allocation. It determined that the children's best interests necessitated maximizing stability and maintaining a structured environment, leading to the majority of parenting time awarded to Kayla. Specific conditions were imposed on Zachary's time with the children, including prohibitions on marijuana use within 24 hours before his parenting time.

Appeal and Legal Arguments

Zachary filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied, prompting an appeal on the grounds that the trial court's decision contradicted the manifest weight of the evidence. He contended that the children's tardiness should not impact parenting time, arguing they were thriving under the existing arrangement. The appellate court found that the trial court had indeed considered the statutory factors relevant to the child's best interests, affirming its decision based on a strong presumption in favor of the trial court’s judgment.

Conclusion

The appellate court's ruling reflects the principle that trial courts are best positioned to evaluate evidence and determine parenting arrangements. Despite Zachary's arguments to the contrary, the court acknowledged that the record supported the trial court's findings, thereby affirming the judgment.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Kayla T.

In re Marriage of Kiamco

Date Published: 1/15/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary

Case Name: In re Marriage of Robin Kiamco v. Vickie Kiamco
Filing Date: January 14, 2025
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Appeal No: 3-23-0249
Circuit No: 21-D-1360

Judgment Overview

Presiding Justice Brennan delivered the judgment, supported by Justices Holdridge and Peterson. The court affirmed and partially dismissed Vickie Kiamco's appeal based on failure to provide a complete record for specific claims, including trial court bias and findings regarding the petitioner’s income, and lacking jurisdiction over post-decree challenges.

Case Background

The marriage between Robin and Vickie Kiamco began on June 12, 1999, and they have two emancipated children. The petitioner filed for dissolution on July 23, 2021. The couple initially resided in Wood Dale, but after the filing, the petitioner moved to property owned by a family trust while the respondent remained in their marital home.

Legal Proceedings

Vickie, initially represented by Beermann LLP, filed various motions including requests for temporary maintenance and attorney fees. The court ordered temporary maintenance and set obligations for both parties, but compliance issues arose, especially regarding document requests from the petitioner. A significant motion for modification was filed by Vickie on April 7, 2022, alleging misconduct related to the petitioner’s financial disclosures.

Claims and Motions Filed

The respondent raised multiple claims, including violations of the ADA, judicial bias, and errors regarding financial disclosures. Numerous motions concerning financial responsibilities and property rights were filed, asserting that the petitioner concealed assets and engaged in forgeries. The respondent also faced challenges in presenting her case due to changing legal counsel and withdrawal of representation.

Trial Proceedings

The trial lasted eight non-consecutive days, with numerous motions submitted, many of which were denied. The petitioner claimed substantial attorney fees were incurred due to the respondent's excessive filings and violations of court procedures. Closing arguments were submitted but Vickie did not comply with this requirement.

Financial Assessments

The court reviewed both parties' incomes: the petitioner reported a gross income of $32,279.94 for 2022 while the respondent earned $38,725 in 2021. The court established that maintenance was inappropriate and declared both parties "forever barred" from receiving it. The marital residence was to be sold with proceeds allocated to cover joint debts, including significant withdrawals made by the respondent.

Post-Decree Proceedings and Appeal

The respondent contested several aspects of the trial and sought to appeal, claiming errors were made regarding accommodations for her disability and other procedural matters. However, the appellate court noted deficiencies in the record on appeal, which limited the evaluation of her claims. The court ruled that incomplete records presumed the trial court's orders were appropriate. Ultimately, the appeal was partially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The judgment from the circuit court of Du Page County was affirmed, with part of the appeal dismissed due to insufficient filing and jurisdictional issues. Vickie was ordered to contribute towards the petitioner's attorney fees from the marital residence proceeds.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Kiamco

In re Marriage of Alpert Knight

Date Published: 1/11/2025

Tags: Marriage Parentage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Amanda Alpert Knight

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, December 27, 2024
Case Number: 2024 IL App (1st) 230629

Background: Robert Knight and Amanda Alpert Knight divorced in 2015, incorporating a marital settlement agreement (MSA). Robert’s wealth largely came from extensive family trusts, valued at $37+ million. The MSA set child support at $10,000/month plus various expense splits, assuming an income range of $600k to $1.6M for Robert. Amanda eventually sought to modify child support after Robert’s income soared well beyond that range, arguing the children’s standard of living with Robert was far superior to her ability to provide.

Issue:

Whether Robert’s significant post-MSA income spike (into multi-million annual capital gains) constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” under Section 510, justifying a higher child support award. Amanda also wanted to present expert testimony on needed home repairs to show the children’s lesser standard of living in her household. She sought attorney fees, claiming financial disparity.

Key Points:

The circuit court denied her motion, ruling the MSA anticipated Robert’s income changes. It also barred her experts on home repair costs as irrelevant.
It denied her fee request, finding she had resources (including a $1M investment account) to handle her own legal costs.

Appellate Findings:

Child Support Modification: The appellate court reversed, emphasizing that multi-million gains exceeding the MSA’s upper bound were not necessarily “anticipated.” The law allows support above the child’s mere “basic needs” if a parent can afford it, to reflect a lifestyle they’d have if the marriage continued (see Bussey).
Expert Testimony: Excluding Amanda’s experts on repairs was an abuse of discretion if it helped show the children’s living standards. The court directed reconsideration of that testimony on remand.
Attorney Fees: The appellate court also reversed the blanket denial, instructing the lower court to weigh statutory factors more closely, including the parties’ relative finances and the reasonableness of her fees.

Conclusion: Partly affirmed—no error in limiting trust discovery, since Robert admitted he could pay a higher amount if ordered. But reversed the child support denial, reversed the fee denial, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the children’s best interests and statutory guidelines.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Alpert Knight

In re Marriage of Hyman

Date Published: 1/11/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Hyman

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District
Case Citation: 2024 IL App (2d) 230352
Date Filed: December 24, 2024

Overview: Rachel D. Hyman appeals multiple decisions of the Circuit Court of Lake County over her attorney fees and related relief in dissolving her marriage to Jeffrey R. Hyman. Their 2015 divorce settlement provided for dividing undisclosed marital assets (like undisclosed stock options). Rachel claimed Jeffrey failed to disclose certain options, eventually owing her $130,196 after taxes. That judgment was upheld on appeal. Later, Rachel petitioned for attorney fees, leading to partial awards but mostly denials, culminating in this further appeal.

Fee Petitions

Rachel filed an “Amended Petition for Attorney’s Fees and Costs” for ~$56,755, plus a “Petition for Attorneys’ Fees and Costs Incurred for Defense of Appeal” for ~$24,833.91 under 508(a)(3) and 508(b). The trial court denied fees under 508(a), saying Rachel didn’t show inability to pay, and rejected the appellate fee request entirely. It awarded $10,000 under 508(b), finding Jeffrey’s noncompliance was unjustified but capping fees without explanation.

Appeal Claims

Rachel contends $10k was too low, the appellate fee denial was erroneous, and she was wrongly denied post-judgment interest. She cites Section 508(b)’s mandatory fee provision when a party has no cause for noncompliance. Also, section 2-1303 mandates 9% interest from the judgment date, which the court refused to impose.

Court’s Analysis

Section 508(b): The appellate court concluded fees are mandatory if a party fails to comply without good cause. The trial court incorrectly used discretion in awarding only $10k. It should reevaluate a “reasonable” fee and ensure no partial denial contradicts the mandatory language.
Appellate Fees: The court likewise found the trial court gave no valid reason for completely denying them if the same noncompliance remained at issue on appeal.
Postjudgment Interest: The court recognized that judgments typically accrue 9% interest from the date entered. The trial court erred by not applying interest under 2-1303. The money owed to Rachel was a final money judgment, so interest attaches automatically.

Conclusion

The appellate court vacated and remanded the prior orders on Rachel’s fee petitions, directing a new hearing on both. It also vacated the denial of interest, instructing the trial court to apply 9% interest dating from February 2, 2022. Thus, the matter was remanded with directions consistent with mandatory fee and interest provisions.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Hyman

In re Marriage of Handler

Date Published: 1/11/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re The Marriage of Handler

Filed: December 31, 2024
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
Petitioner: Brian Handler
Respondent: Elizabeth Abeysekera
Circuit Court: 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County
Judge: Hon. Robert E. Douglas
Appeal No: 3-23-0119
Circuit No: 17-D-1174

Background: The parties have five children. On October 15, 2019, the circuit court issued a judgment of dissolution requiring equal division of children’s expenses. Elizabeth later alleged Brian failed to reimburse certain daycare costs. He then moved to dismiss her pleadings for discovery noncompliance, which was granted on November 22, 2022, leading to Elizabeth’s appeal.

Case Summary: Discovery and Dismissal

Several disputes arose around discovery compliance about Elizabeth’s employment, childcare, and financial records. After repeated delays, on September 7, 2022, the court warned failure to comply by September 23 would trigger dismissal of the noncompliant party’s filings. Elizabeth’s partial compliance was deemed insufficient, prompting Brian’s motion to dismiss. The court granted it and struck her pleadings with prejudice. She moved for reconsideration six times, all denied, then appealed.

Legal Analysis

The petitioner contended the dismissal was correct under Rule 219(c) for willful noncompliance, and the appellate court agreed. Dismissal with prejudice is a severe sanction for clear disregard of court orders. The court saw repeated failures from Elizabeth, culminating in the final compliance deadline. On appeal, she argued confusion over orders, but the record showed ample warnings and opportunities to comply.

Conclusion

The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in dismissing her pleadings with prejudice. Likewise, denying her motions to reconsider was proper. The court affirmed all aspects of the lower court’s judgment.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Handler

In_re_Marriage_of_Hoster

Date Published: 1/11/2025

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Hoster

Case Citation: 2024 IL App (3d) 240222 -U
Date Filed: December 24, 2024

Background

The dissolution of marriage between Timothy P. Hoster (Petitioner-Appellee) and Tiffany Y. Hoster (Respondent-Appellant) originated in Will County. They divorced December 8, 2022. Tiffany appealed, but the appellate court lacked jurisdiction due to procedural issues. The property division between them remains unresolved.

Key Events

Timothy filed January 19, 2021
Default dissolution April 7, 2021, later vacated April 19, 2021
Tiffany discharged her attorney July 18, 2022; appeared pro se September 16, 2022
Marriage was dissolved December 8, 2022

Judgment Details

The final decree ordered the marital residence sold within thirty days, splitting proceeds equally, and set Timothy’s maintenance at $807/month. Post-judgment, Tiffany filed multiple motions but did not file required briefs for her appeal, leading to dismissal under Rule 375(a).

Further Disputes

Timothy obtained a stay on maintenance, citing unsold property and ongoing mortgage obligations. Tiffany challenged that, seeking a rule to show cause. The court refused to lift the stay until she vacated the home and cleared personal property so the residence could be shown or sold.

Conclusion

The appellate court dismissed Tiffany’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, partly due to res judicata (her prior appeal was dismissed) and partly because the orders lacked finality or 304(a) findings. The dissolution issues remain governed by the trial court’s pending sale and maintenance conditions.

Download PDF of In_re_Marriage_of_Hoster

In re Marriage of Hoster

Date Published: 12/24/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

Facts

In re Marriage of Hoster concerns the dissolution of marriage between Timothy P. Hoster and Tiffany Y. Hoster. Timothy filed on January 19, 2021; a dissolution judgment entered December 8, 2022. Tiffany contested it, filing multiple motions and an appeal on July 5, 2023, which was dismissed for noncompliance with appellate rules.

Meanwhile, they disputed maintenance obligations and the sale of their marital home. The court stayed Timothy’s maintenance until the property sold, prompting Tiffany to seek to lift that stay. She was unsuccessful, filed further appeals, etc.

Issue

The main question is whether the appellate court can review Tiffany’s claims about the original dissolution judgment and subsequent orders on maintenance and property matters.

Holding

The appellate court dismissed her appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing res judicata for the original judgment (due to her earlier appeal’s dismissal) and no final or Rule 304(a) findings for the later orders. Thus, nothing was properly appealable.

Reasoning

Res judicata barred re-litigation of the dissolution issues. Post-dissolution matters (maintenance or property dispositions) lacked final appealable orders with the required 304(a) language. Tiffany’s arguments on attorney conduct also fell outside appellate jurisdiction. She waived those claims by not raising them earlier, and any discipline belongs before the ARDC.

In sum, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear her appeals on all points; thus, it dismissed them in full.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Hoster

In re Marriage of Feldman, 2024 IL App (4th) 240110-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Susan Feldman and Michael Feldman, the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed Michael Feldman’s appeal over spousal maintenance and property division after divorce.

Background: Married 18 years, two children. The marital settlement gave Susan 60% of marital assets (including the home) plus maintenance from Michael. Michael argued his finances had worsened from job loss and health expenses, so the maintenance award was excessive. He also challenged the valuation of Susan’s inheritance.

Trial Findings: The court upheld spousal maintenance, noting Michael’s situation still warranted supporting Susan. But it deemed Susan’s inheritance commingled, making it subject to equitable distribution.

Appellate Decision: It affirmed the maintenance award, seeing it as reasonable given the evidence. However, it reversed and remanded the inheritance valuation, saying it was undervalued. The trial court must reassess the inheritance to ensure an equitable split.

Conclusion: Maintenance stands, property division about the inheritance must be revisited. The ruling underscores accurate asset valuation for fairness in dissolution proceedings.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Feldman, 2024 IL App (4th) 240110-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Mattson, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed denial of Jeff Mattson’s move to terminate maintenance to ex-wife Christine after their 2016 divorce. He contended Christine cohabited with a new partner and shirked self-support obligations.

They’d agreed to a marital settlement with maintenance for Christine. The trial court found no proof she lived with her partner on a conjugal basis—no shared finances, residence, or responsibilities. Jeff also tried introducing texts referencing cohabitation, but they were excluded for lack of authentication.

Regarding Christine’s alleged failure to become self-sufficient, the court noted her long workforce absence and child-rearing duties. Jeff showed no major change in his ability to pay or Christine’s reduced needs. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s credibility findings, ultimately upholding the maintenance arrangement. It underscored each divorce’s unique factors and the reasonableness of the trial court’s conclusions.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Mattson, 2024 IL App (3d) 230307-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Hagan, 2024 IL App (2d) 230525-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Lynn Hagan and John Hagan, the Illinois Appellate Court considered John’s appeal of a marital settlement agreement found valid and enforceable by the trial court, which also awarded attorney fees to Lynn.

Background: After 35 years of marriage, Lynn filed for divorce. John made significant income; Lynn, a homemaker with health issues, had no job. They signed a memorandum of understanding dividing assets, requiring monthly maintenance, and having John cover part of Lynn’s attorney fees.

Claims by John: He alleged the agreement lacked specificity and was unconscionable. He also challenged a changed asset allocation by the trial court. Finally, he disputed the $35,000 attorney-fee contribution, arguing it was excessive.

Trial Court Findings: It found the agreement binding and conscionable. Because Lynn lacked means, John’s higher income warranted her $35,000 fee award.

Appellate Court’s Decision: Spousal maintenance stood, but the appellate court reversed the trial court’s valuation of “Susan’s inheritance,” indicating it was undervalued. (Likely a reference to a separate inheritance detail; the summary text seems partially mismatched, so that portion was reversed and remanded for correct valuation.) It highlights the importance of accurate asset valuations.

Conclusion: Maintenance remains intact, but the property-valuation piece was remanded for further review, ensuring fairness and equity for both spouses.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Hagan, 2024 IL App (2d) 230525-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Grant, 2024 IL App (1st) 240029-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Roger D. Colbert Jr. and Stacey L. Colbert, the Illinois Appellate Court reversed and remanded a trial-court decision on maintenance and attorney fees following their divorce.

Background: Roger was to pay Stacey $2,045/month. In April 2022, he petitioned to terminate, alleging Stacey cohabited with boyfriend Jody Short continuously and conjugal. Under Illinois law, that would end his obligation.

Trial Court’s Ruling: It deemed evidence insufficient and denied his petition, also ordering him to pay $3,000 for Stacey’s attorney fees. The ruling didn’t detail required statutory factors for awarding fees.

Appellate Findings:

Cohabitation: Surveillances and address records strongly indicated Stacey lived with Short, satisfying “resident, continuous, conjugal basis.” Maintenance should end retroactively to the start date of cohabitation.
Attorney Fees: The trial court erred by not addressing statutory criteria (e.g., each party’s ability to pay). The order lacked detailed reasoning.

Conclusion: The appellate court reversed the trial court, instructing it to end Roger’s maintenance obligations from cohabitation’s onset, reimburse him for overpaid amounts, and reexamine Stacey’s fee petition under proper standards.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Grant, 2024 IL App (1st) 240029-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Gualandi, 2024 IL App (5th) 240238

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Gualandi, Nicholas Gualandi appealed a Williamson County ruling revising parenting time and responsibilities for his children T.G. (12) and D.G. (8) in favor of their mother, Nikki Mau-Gualandi. They divorced in 2015 and had since modified parenting arrangements multiple times.

Background: Father initially got the majority of parenting time. Ongoing disputes arose about mother’s exercise of time and home conditions. A GAL found hygiene/cleanliness issues in father’s home but also mother’s unstable housing and questionable parenting.
GAL Recommendation Shift: Mid-hearing, the GAL recommended giving mother primary custody, with relocation to Indiana, concluding it better served the kids’ best interest.
Circuit Court Judgment: The court granted mother primary custody and relocation, citing a need for therapy and educational monitoring.
Appeal Decision: The appellate court vacated that order, pointing to insufficient investigation of both parents’ homes/abilities and a procedural error claiming parental agreement that never existed. It remanded for more thorough fact-finding and possibly a new GAL.

The ruling highlighted ensuring the children’s best interests and giving them proper representation in any final arrangement.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Gualandi, 2024 IL App (5th) 240238

In re Marriage of Gorr, 2024 IL App (3d) 230412

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

This appellate proceeding in In re Marriage of Gorr involved Angela Gorr’s appeal after the circuit court denied her bid to extend ex-husband Daniel Erickson’s maintenance payments post-divorce.

Background: 19-year marriage, two now-emancipated kids. The original dissolution mandated Daniel’s maintenance for 48 months after selling their marital home. Angela filed in 2019 to extend, citing inability to be self-supporting.
Earlier Appeal: The Second District reversed a denial for failing to weigh statutory extension factors thoroughly, directing a fresh review of Angela’s independence efforts.
Remand Outcome: In January 2023, the circuit court again denied her request, highlighting her minimal progress and negative courtroom conduct. It ordered Daniel to pay $2,000 in her attorney fees but not more, ignoring the financial imbalance.
Appellate Findings: Affirmed refusing a maintenance extension, as Angela’s evidence was lacking. However, it modified attorney fees to $15,422.64, reflecting Daniel’s higher earning ability and fairness. Angela’s personal conduct and prior bankruptcy didn’t alter the outcome.

Conclusion: The appellate court upheld no extension of maintenance, adjusting fees so Daniel contributed more. Overall, Angela’s claims didn’t justify extending spousal support longer.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Gorr, 2024 IL App (3d) 230412

In re Marriage of Gerber, 2024 IL App (2d) 220244-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Lawrence Gerber and Laura Gerber, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed Lawrence’s appeal after a dissolution judgment. The trial court valued the marital businesses at $9.798 million and found his $87,335.15 payment of attorney fees (post-breakdown) was dissipation.

Business Valuation: The court upheld an expert-appointed $7.05 million value for the marital share of Scholarships.com and American Student Marketing, rejecting Lawrence’s arguments for separate valuations.
Dissipation of Assets: The appellate court reversed part of the dissipation findings (the $600,000 loan from Lambertucci Roma and $860,000 from Marlac proceeds), insufficiently supported by evidence.
Equitable Distribution: Lawrence claimed the property division was inequitable due to heavier debt assigned to him. The appellate court remanded for clarifications and possibly new orders on marital debts.
Indemnification & Contempt: The court found it within trial-court authority to order indemnification on joint debts. Lawrence’s contempt petition against Susan’s counsel was properly dismissed.

Ultimately, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings regarding marital debts and revised property division. More detail on obligations is needed for equitable distribution.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Gerber, 2024 IL App (2d) 220244-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Garcia, 2024 IL App (1st) 230957-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re the Marriage of Bernardo Garcia and Maria M. Garcia n/k/a Maria Morales, the Illinois Appellate Court addressed the parents’ contributions to their older daughter’s college expenses after divorce.

Bernardo and Maria divorced in 2009, agreeing to contribute equally to college costs. In March 2022, Maria petitioned for half of their daughter’s tuition at DePaul University. Bernardo argued she should have chosen a cheaper option and that he lacked funds. But the court found his testimony lacking credibility and ordered each parent pay $12,000, totaling $24,000. Bernardo moved to reconsider, and was denied.

The appellate court upheld the ruling, noting the marital settlement had them split costs based on ability. It found no abuse of discretion in deeming Bernardo financially able and rejecting his complaint about lack of consultation. The daughter’s attendance at a private university was not per se unreasonable, so the parents split the cost. Judgment affirmed.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Garcia, 2024 IL App (1st) 230957-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Folley, 2024 IL App (4th) 240083-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Anne E.L. Folley and Gregory F. Folley, the Fourth District Appellate Court reviewed modifications to spousal maintenance after a 28-year marriage. Gregory originally owed Anne $20,000/mo permanent maintenance but got it reduced to $0 when he retired early. Anne appealed, and the appellate court found total elimination an abuse of discretion, remanding for recalculation of his ability to pay plus any arrears.

On remand, the trial court set maintenance at $14,000 monthly. Gregory appealed again, claiming excessiveness and noncompliance with instructions. The appellate court held the figure was reasonable, given Gregory’s substantial assets and ability to pay, plus the long marriage with Anne’s role raising nine children. The court corrected a typo in the maintenance amount but affirmed the rest, concluding Gregory’s objections lacked merit.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Folley, 2024 IL App (4th) 240083-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Erikson,2024 IL App (3d) 240258-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Darlena Erickson n/k/a Darlena Gomez v. Cody Erickson, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a lower court’s refusal to allow relocation of minor children post-divorce. Darlena sought to move from Bourbonnais to St. Charles (~75 miles away), opposed by Cody.

A circuit court initially denied the relocation but was remanded by the appellate court for focusing insufficiently on the children’s best interests. On remand, it again denied the move and altered parenting time in Cody’s favor, which Darlena appealed.

The appellate court again upheld the denial, concluding it was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. They cited statutory best-interest factors, including each parent’s relationship with the children, educational continuity, and emotional impact. While both parents were active and caring, uprooting them for a 75-mile move would be burdensome and disrupt routines.

Additionally, Darlena hadn’t complied fully with notice requirements for relocation, affecting the decision. The court found the trial court’s conclusion reasonable, reaffirming denial of relocation and modifications to parenting time.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Erikson,2024 IL App (3d) 240258-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Dumortier, 2024 IL App (1st) 232202-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Parentage

Summary:

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Nicolas DuMortier and Jorie Lynn Taylor

Court: Illinois Appellate Court, First Judicial District
Date Filed: July 24, 2024
Case No.: 2024 IL App (1st) 232202-U
Judges: Justice D.B. Walker delivered the judgment, with Presiding Justice Reyes and Justice Lampkin concurring.

Background: Nicolas DuMortier filed for dissolution from Jorie Lynn Taylor on June 30, 2021. They share one child, M.D. Nicolas sought sole parental responsibilities, limiting Jorie’s time due to mental health and substance issues. Initially, a default judgment dissolved the marriage and set parental responsibilities based on Jorie’s non-appearance.

Subsequent hearings addressed parenting responsibilities. The trial court found Jorie posed a serious risk to M.D. and suspended her parenting time until certain evaluations and treatments. Jorie, pro se, appealed numerous orders, alleging judicial misconduct but failing to support her claims with legal authority or sufficient record references.

Legal Proceedings: The appellate court confirmed Jorie’s notice of appeal was timely after denial of her reconsideration motion on October 31, 2023. Despite procedural errors in her brief, the court reviewed her case on the merits, underscoring the importance of parental rights. It upheld the trial court’s decisions, citing Jorie’s lack of legal basis for her challenges and the court’s structured plan allowing her to regain parenting time if she complied with treatment.

Conclusion: The appellate court affirmed, finding no reversible error and emphasizing Jorie’s path to re-establish parenting time subject to compliance. The dissolution judgment’s validity was not undermined, and her parental rights remain subject to safety measures for M.D.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Dumortier, 2024 IL App (1st) 232202-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Dimitrov, 2024 IL App (1st) 231794-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Krassimir Dimitrov and Tsveta Dimitrova, the Illinois Appellate Court affirmed a ruling that their postnuptial agreement was substantively unconscionable.

Krassimir sought a declaratory judgment upholding the agreement, which gave him nearly all marital assets while assigning debts to Tsveta. Though there were procedural formalities, the court found it grossly one-sided, awarding 100% of listed assets to Krassimir and almost nothing to Tsveta.

Evidence showed Tsveta was pressured into signing, possibly threatened about custody and family visitation. Despite Tsveta having counsel, her comprehension was deemed limited. The court described it as oppressive and unfair.

Krassimir claimed assigning debts to him balanced the arrangement, but the liabilities were overshadowed by substantial assets he retained. The court upheld the agreement’s invalidation, concluding it served no equitable purpose and was unenforceable.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Dimitrov, 2024 IL App (1st) 231794-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Dahm-Shell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230529-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Sandra D. Dahm-Schell and Mark R. Schell, the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed an appeal over child support and maintenance following a 2016 divorce, with continued disputes about inherited income, credit card debt, etc.

Key Points:

Recalculation of Support: The appellate court reversed part of the circuit court’s order that started support in March 2017. It instructed recalculation from October 2016 (the original dissolution date), per a prior Illinois Supreme Court mandate requiring inherited IRA distributions be counted as income.
Affirmation: The court upheld other portions involving interest on credit card/medical expenses, as Sandra didn’t adequately argue those on appeal.
Contempt Findings: Both parties had been held in indirect civil contempt for failing prior orders.

The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for recalculation of Mark’s child support obligations.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Dahm-Shell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230529-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Colbert, 2024 IL App (5th) 230196-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In In re Marriage of Roger D. Colbert Jr. and Stacey L. Colbert, the Appellate Court of Illinois reversed and remanded a trial court decision on maintenance and attorney fees after their divorce.

Background:

Roger D. Colbert Jr. and Stacey L. Colbert married in 1995, divorced in 2018, with Roger ordered to pay $2,045 monthly maintenance.
In April 2022, Roger sought to end maintenance, alleging Stacey cohabited with boyfriend Jody Short on a conjugal, continuous basis, making him no longer responsible under Illinois law.

Trial Court's Ruling:

The court denied Roger’s cohabitation claim, saying insufficient proof existed to end maintenance.
It also ordered Roger to pay $3,000 toward Stacey’s attorney fees, noting income disparity but without detailed statutory factor analysis.

Appellate Findings:

Cohabitation Evidence: The appellate court found Roger provided substantial surveillance showing Stacey living with Short, including legal address changes and frequent overnight stays. This warranted ending maintenance retroactive to the cohabitation date.
Attorney Fees: The trial court erred by not fully evaluating required factors in the Illinois Marriage Act. Hence, the fee order lacked legal justification.

Conclusion:

The appellate court reversed, ordering termination of maintenance and reimbursement for what Roger paid after cohabitation began. It remanded for determining the exact cohabitation date and reevaluating attorney fees under proper standards.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Colbert, 2024 IL App (5th) 230196-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Chapa, 2024 IL App (3d) 230047-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In the legal case In re Marriage of Chapa, the Illinois Appellate Court reviewed the circuit court’s actions regarding Nancy Lea Chapa's petition to extend maintenance from ex-husband Daniel Chapa after their 2012 divorce.

Background:

They were married 19 years, had two children now emancipated. Upon dissolution, Daniel was to pay Nancy maintenance for 48 months after selling their marital home.
Nancy filed in 2019 to extend maintenance, citing inability to be self-supporting.
The circuit court denied the request in December 2021, focusing on Nancy’s alleged lack of effort and disrespect toward the court.

Appeals and Rulings:

Initial Appeal: The Second District Appellate Court reversed, saying the circuit court didn’t properly weigh statutory factors for extending maintenance.
Remand: The court was told to do a de novo review on Nancy’s best efforts to become independent.
Second Ruling: On January 23, 2023, the circuit court again denied Nancy’s petition, citing continued lack of self-sufficiency efforts. It awarded only $2,000 in attorney fees from Daniel.

Appellate Court Findings:

The court upheld denying maintenance extension, concluding Nancy hadn’t shown progress toward independence.
It modified the attorney fees award, raising them to $15,422.64, given Daniel’s greater financial ability.

Conclusion:

The appellate court affirmed the lower court’s no-extension ruling while adjusting fees. Nancy’s other conduct and bankruptcy background did not alter the maintenance outcome.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Chapa, 2024 IL App (3d) 230047-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Celik, 2024 IL App (1st) 230660-U

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

This case involves the dissolution of marriage between Yasemin Celik and Onur Celik, presided over by the Circuit Court of Cook County. The main issues on appeal, filed by Yasemin, related to financial judgments in the divorce proceedings.

The court found Onur contributed $112,000 from his nonmarital estate to the marital condo downpayment, a decision Yasemin disputed, claiming it was not clearly traceable and should be considered a gift. However, the appellate court upheld the trial court's finding, supported by bank statements showing the transfer from Onur's nonmarital account.

The trial court awarded Yasemin 60% of the condo’s equity, set maintenance and child support, and ordered each side to pay their own attorney fees. Yasemin argued the asset division should have favored her more due to her finances, but the appellate court ruled the trial court acted within its discretion, emphasizing both parties’ future earning potential and standard factors in Illinois law for asset division.

Yasemin also questioned the trial court’s income calculations for maintenance/child support. The appellate court found the court had properly assessed incomes and obligations, and it upheld the lower court’s reimbursement and other financial rulings.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Celik, 2024 IL App (1st) 230660-U

In re Marriage of Bulatovic, 2024 IL App (1st) 220224-U

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In the case In re Marriage of Bulatovic v. Stojanovic, Marko Stojanovic (respondent-appellant) appealed decisions of the Circuit Court of Cook County concerning his obligations for maintenance and child support following his divorce from Marija Bulatovic (petitioner-appellee). The appeal particularly focused on a September 2021 order addressing four of Marko's petitions to modify or abate these obligations and a separate request to reallocate fees for a guardian ad litem (GAL).

The appellate court clarified that it lacked jurisdiction to review the order denying Marko's request regarding GAL fees, as it was a non-final order. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decisions on Marko’s petitions, noting that Marko had previously agreed in open court to pay maintenance in the form of rent, crucial to the findings.

The history of the divorce proceedings showed numerous disputes, with the court finding Marko had not acted consistently with his financial obligations. Despite claims of changed circumstances—like job loss—the court concluded he did not meet the threshold for modifying child support.

Marko alleged trial-court bias, but the appellate court found no substantial evidence supporting that claim. Ultimately, his appeal was largely unsuccessful, and the court affirmed the previous rulings on child support and maintenance as legally sound.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bulatovic, 2024 IL App (1st) 220224-U

In re Marriage of Brozell, 2024 IL App (1st) 232436-U.pdf

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In the case In re Marriage of Michelle Brozell n/k/a Michelle Kennedy v. Eugene Brozell, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, filed an order on October 18, 2024, dismissing Eugene Brozell's pro se appeal due to lack of jurisdiction. The appeal arose from a post-decree dissolution of marriage proceeding, where Eugene challenged an order finding him in arrears for $73,000 in unpaid child support related to extracurricular activities for his children.

Eugene's appeals included requests for a refund of $26,000, vacatur of contempt orders, claims of misconduct by Michelle and her attorney, and a request for equal division of marital assets. However, the court concluded that Eugene's notice of appeal pertained to a nonfinal order, as the trial court's November 30, 2023, order did not fully resolve the child support issues and left matters pending.

Additionally, the court noted that Eugene's appeal lacked compliance with procedural requirements, such as clarity of legal arguments and proper record citations. Because the order was not final and the arguments were not specified in his notice of appeal, the court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Eugene's attempts to challenge prior orders were unsuccessful, and the appeal was formally dismissed.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Brozell, 2024 IL App (1st) 232436-U.pdf

In re Marriage of Bremer, 2024 IL App (3d) 230579-U

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

The legal case involved the marital dissolution proceedings between Kathy Bremer (the petitioner-appellant) and James Bremer (the respondent-appellee). The appellate court addressed multiple issues raised by Kathy regarding the circuit court's decisions related to maintenance obligations following their legal separation and subsequent dissolution of marriage.

Key points include:

Transfer of Case: The appellate court concluded that whether the transfer of the legal separation case to Du Page County constituted the enrollment of the judgment was moot, as the court had considered and enforced the judgment.
Permanent Maintenance: It was determined that the judgment of legal separation did not award permanent maintenance. The court found that maintenance issues should be decided de novo in the dissolution proceedings since no non-modifiable agreement existed.
Maintenance Payments: The trial court's finding that James paid all maintenance obligations through 2007 was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court reversed this finding and remanded the case to determine the correct date for the start of James's arrearage payment.
Behavior of Respondent: James's failure to pay maintenance was classified as not contumacious; the court found his testimony credible that he believed payments had ended when the prior dissolution petition was dismissed.
Arrearage Payments: The order limiting James’s arrearage payments to $120 per month was upheld, aligning with the existing legal separation order.
Petition to Modify Maintenance: The court did not abuse its discretion in granting James’s motion to dismiss Kathy's motion to modify maintenance, reasoning that all maintenance matters must be considered in the ongoing dissolution proceedings.
Attorney Fees: The court denied Kathy's petition for contribution toward her attorney fees, determining such requests were not justified based on the parties' financial situations.
Termination of Maintenance: Ongoing maintenance was deemed inappropriate and was retroactively terminated as of July 2019 (when James filed to terminate maintenance).

In conclusion, the appellate court affirmed most of the trial court's decisions while reversing the finding on the start date for James's arrearage obligation, requiring a remand to calculate the total arrearage owed.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bremer, 2024 IL App (3d) 230579-U

In re Marriage of Bibber, 2024 IL App (2d) 220221-U

Date Published: 12/14/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In the case In re Marriage of John Walter Bibber, John Walter Bibber (the petitioner) appealed decisions made by the Circuit Court of Kane County regarding his request to terminate or modify his maintenance obligations to Katherine Harbeck Bibber (the respondent).

Background:

The couple's marriage was dissolved in 2015, with John required to pay Katherine monthly maintenance of $3,700, terminating upon death, her remarriage, or cohabitation on a conjugal basis.
In December 2020, John filed a petition to terminate or modify maintenance, citing changes in his financial circumstances due to job loss related to the COVID-19 pandemic and a subsequent decrease in income.
An evidentiary hearing took place in June 2021, after which the court denied John's petition for modification in an order dated August 10, 2021.

Key Proceedings:

John filed a motion to reconsider the denial, arguing that the trial court did not correctly apply statutory factors related to maintenance.
Katherine filed a motion to strike John's reconsideration motion, and the trial court granted Katherine's motion, effectively denying John's reconsideration request.

Court's Findings:

The appellate court struck a supplemental bystander's report submitted by John because it was not stipulated to by both parties.
The court concluded that, since the original bystander's report lacked details about the trial court's findings, it must presume the court's findings supported its decision.
The court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision-making regarding the denial of John's request to modify maintenance, noting John had the burden to supply a complete record to support his claim of error.

Conclusion:

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions, denying both the petition to terminate or modify maintenance and the motion to reconsider. John's claims concerning changes in circumstances and issues related to his credibility were insufficient to overturn the trial court's ruling. The ruling emphasizes that a party's failure to provide a complete and accurate record can undermine their appeal.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bibber, 2024 IL App (2d) 220221-U

In re Marriage of Bartlett, 2024 IL App (1st) 230624-U

Date Published: 10/30/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

The legal case summarized is In re the Marriage of Lynne E. Bartlett and Dennis M. Quinn, No. 1-23-0624, decided by the Illinois Appellate Court on October 30, 2024.

Background: Dennis M. Quinn and Lynne E. Bartlett were married for nearly 24 years before their marriage was dissolved in 2008, at which point Quinn was ordered to pay Bartlett $8,000 in permanent maintenance monthly. This amount was later modified to $6,500. In 2019, Quinn sought to modify or terminate his maintenance obligation due to his planned retirement. Initially, the court denied this request, but an appellate court reversed that decision, determining that Quinn had indeed experienced a substantial change in circumstances due to retirement.

Current Proceedings: On remand, the trial court upheld Quinn's permanent maintenance obligation but modified it to $807.78 monthly based on statutory factors under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. Quinn appealed, contending both that the maintenance award was erroneous and that he should have been repaid rather than credited for his overpayments.

Court Findings:

Maintenance Award: The court ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the maintenance award and properly considered the statutory factors in determining that a deviation from the guidelines was warranted. Although a guideline calculation would suggest a maintenance amount of $0, the court found that Bartlett’s medical needs and expenses justified ongoing support.
Credit for Overpayment: The trial court ordered that Quinn receive a credit for overpayments rather than immediate repayment. The appellate court found this decision reasonable given the parties' financial circumstances, which indicated that Bartlett’s immediate repayment could affect her standard of living.
Attorney Fees: Bartlett requested attorney fees but had not filed a cross-appeal; therefore, this issue was not considered by the appellate court.

Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order regarding the maintenance award and the treatment of Quinn's overpayment credits.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bartlett, 2024 IL App (1st) 230624-U

In re Marriage of Bedard, 2024 IL App (1st) 232280-U

Date Published: 9/30/2024

Tags: Marriage

Summary:

In the case of In re Marriage of Matthew Bedard and Solange Fingal Bedard (2024 IL App (1st) 232280-U), the Illinois Appellate Court addressed sanctions imposed on attorney Lori M. Succes during the dissolution of marriage proceeding between her former client, Solange Fingal Bedard, and her spouse, Matthew Bedard. The case, filed on September 30, 2024, involves a highly contentious legal battle where multiple filings and allegations of improper conduct were exchanged between the parties.

Lori Succes had represented Solange from October 2022 to April 2023. After Succes withdrew, the circuit court sanctioned her for making what were deemed meritless and duplicative filings. The court initially laid out the basis for sanctions, which included several motions related to maintenance, parenting time, and the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL).

The court found that while the sanctions were justified concerning various filings predating December 1, 2022, Succes was not given adequate notice about sanctionable conduct related to some filings made after that date. Consequently, the appellate court upheld some of the sanctions but vacated those related to the later filings due to lack of notice.

Ultimately, the majority of the circuit court's sanctions against Succes were upheld, amounting to nearly $36,000, though the court allowed for objections regarding the conduct occurring after December 1, 2022. The appellate court emphasized the importance of proper notice in sanction proceedings while affirming that the circuit court's rulings on earlier filings were within the bounds of discretion.

The case illustrates the complexities of legal representation in high-conflict divorces, the responsibilities of attorneys to avoid frivolous filings, and the procedural safeguards necessary in sanctioning legal professionals.

Download PDF of In re Marriage of Bedard, 2024 IL App (1st) 232280-U

Results / AI Response

In re Marriage of Mercier

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (1st) 241075

Parties Involved

Case Background

Legal Proceedings

Judgment and Sanctions

Appeal Findings

Conclusion

In re Marriage of Liou

Case Summary: No. 1-22-1630

Background

Receiver's Appointment and Duties

Fee Applications and Objections

Evidentiary Hearing and Testimonies

Court Findings and Judgment

Conclusion

In re Marriage of Kreps

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Kreps

Background

Pleading and Disputes

Trial Court Decision

Appellate Court Findings

Legal Standards Considered

Notice and Compliance

Outcome

In re Marriage of Harnack

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pamela Harnack (No. 1-24-0835)

Background

Financial Findings

Contempt Ruling

Judicial Findings

Subsequent Proceedings

Recent Developments

Conclusion

In re Marriage of Heaver

Case Summary: In re The Marriage of Sean and Christine Heaver

Background

Court Decision

Key Findings

Appeals and Procedural Issues

Conclusion

Marriage of Kalebic

Case Summary: 2025 IL App (2d) 230272

Parties:

Background

Key Findings and Rulings:

Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) Overview

Claims and Legal Proceedings

Pleadings and Appeals

Judicial Findings and Conclusions

Final Observations

In re Marriage of Ziegelman

Case Summary

Parties Involved

Judgment Overview

Order Highlights

Background

Support Obligations and Financial Context

Trial Court Rulings and Appeals

Contempt and Due Process Considerations

Conclusion

In re Marriage of Isom

Case Summary

Background

Child Support Orders

Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA)

Trial Court's Ruling and Appeals

Legal Standard for Appellate Review

Conclusion

In re Marriage of Nasson

Case Overview

Parties Involved

Circuit Court Details

Background

Dissolution Judgment and Financial Details

Attorney Fees and Disputes

Key Findings and Verdict

In re Marriage of Conklin

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Conklin