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

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Celik, No. 1‑23‑0660 (1st Dist. Aug. 23, 2024) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Yasemin Celik. Respondent‑Appellee: Onur Celik.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in ordering a $112,000 reimbursement to husband’s nonmarital estate for the condominium down payment (tracing and characterization).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) distributing condominium equity, (b) dividing retirement assets, (c) awarding child support and maintenance, (d) reallocating guardian ad litem (GAL) fees, and (e) denying contribution for wife’s attorney fees.

3) Holding / Outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held appellant failed to show the trial court’s findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence or that the trial court abused its discretion. Trial court’s reimbursement (nonmarital $112,000), asset divisions, maintenance (9 months at $832/mo), child support ($134/mo), retirement division, and fee allocations were upheld. Request to supplement the record was denied.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Tracing/nonmarital reimbursement: the trial court explicitly found by “clear and convincing evidence” that $112,000 used toward the condo down payment came from husband’s premarital (nonmarital) funds. The finding rested on bank statements showing substantial premarital balances and transfers immediately preceding closing; condo and mortgage were titled solely in husband’s name and there was no evidence of a gift. The appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings.
- Retirement division: court adopted expert (financial analyst) tracing to apportion premarital vs. marital portions of husband’s 401(k), awarding wife 50% of the marital portion.
- Support and maintenance: court used husband’s wage evidence (~$119K/yr) and wife’s documented monthly income (employer letter showing $3,444/month net) to compute guideline child support and limited (9‑month) maintenance; rehabilitative maintenance was denied.
- Fees/GAL: trial court exercised discretion reallocating outstanding GAL fees (60% husband/40% wife) and required each party to bear their own attorney fees (except prior agreed orders).

5) Practice implications for attorneys
- Meticulous documentary tracing (bank statements, timely transfers) can secure nonmarital reimbursement—preserve and introduce clear transactional records.
- Title and mortgage in one spouse’s name strengthen nonmarital characterization absent evidence of gift.
- Use financial experts to apportion retirement/401(k) growth to avoid reversals.
- Be precise about income evidence (gross vs. net; tax reimbursement arrangements, foreign employer correspondence) — ambiguity can adversely affect support/maintenance calculations.
- Obtain and preserve agreed orders for interim fee payments; challenge GAL fee allocations promptly.
- On appeal, overturning such factual and discretionary determinations requires demonstrating manifest weight or clear abuse of discretion.