Illinois Appellate Case Law Repository

In re Marriage of Morton

Date Published: 1/24/2025

Tags:

Summary:
```html

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

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

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

January 24, 2025

The Honorable Ericka Orr

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. 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.
2. GAL Recommendation Shift: Mid-hearing, the GAL recommended giving mother primary custody, with relocation to Indiana, concluding it better served the kids’ best interest.
3. Circuit Court Judgment: The court granted mother primary custody and relocation, citing a need for therapy and educational monitoring.
4. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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:

1. 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.
2. Affirmation: The court upheld other portions involving interest on credit card/medical expenses, as Sandra didn’t adequately argue those on appeal.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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:

1. Initial Appeal: The Second District Appellate Court reversed, saying the circuit court didn’t properly weigh statutory factors for extending maintenance.
2. Remand: The court was told to do a de novo review on Nancy’s best efforts to become independent.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Arrearage Payments: The order limiting James’s arrearage payments to $120 per month was upheld, aligning with the existing legal separation order.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. The appellate court struck a supplemental bystander's report submitted by John because it was not stipulated to by both parties.
2. 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.
3. 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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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