In re Marriage of Lach

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Lach, 2024 IL App (2d) 220230-U (Ill. App. Ct. June 7, 2024) — Teresa Lach (petitioner) v. John Lach (respondent). (Rule 23(b) order; non‑precedential except as limited by Rule 23(e)(1).)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court’s valuation of and award of 71 Nevada parcels (MLL, Inc. properties) to John was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred in finding John dissipated $1,400,000 in marital assets.
3. Whether the trial court had authority to require John to indemnify Teresa for marital liabilities (including attorney fees).
4. Whether the trial court’s overall property distribution was equitable given its findings (including assignment of most marital debt to John).
5. Procedural: whether the local rule required appointment of special counsel before a probable‑cause determination on a petition to adjudicate indirect criminal contempt; and whether the contempt probable‑cause issue was preserved.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions. It affirmed the valuation and award of the Nevada MLL parcels to John and affirmed that the trial court may order indemnity (including attorney‑fee provision). It reversed the finding of dissipation as against the manifest weight of the evidence. It declined to resolve whether the property division was equitable because the trial court failed to make sufficient findings regarding the value of marital debts/obligations and remanded for further findings. It held the local rule does not require prior appointment of special counsel before a probable‑cause finding and found the contempt probable‑cause issue forfeited by respondent.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Owner testimony: the court found John’s testimony competent to support the trial court’s valuation of the MLL parcels; remand was unnecessary on valuation or the court’s choice to award the properties to John rather than ordering sale.
- Dissipation: appellate court concluded the trial court’s dissipation finding (and $1.4M figure) was not supported by the evidence and was against the manifest weight.
- Property division: because the trial court did not make adequate findings about the value of marital debts and obligations, the appellate court could not meaningfully assess the overall fairness of the distribution and remanded for further findings.
- Indemnity/fees: trial court has authority to require indemnification against marital liabilities and to include attorney‑fee provisions.
- Procedure/contempt: the 19th Judicial Circuit local rule does not mandate appointing special counsel before a probable‑cause determination; failure to preserve the contempt probable‑cause challenge resulted in forfeiture.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- When arguing dissipation, present clear, traceable evidence tying transfers to nonmarital dissipation and quantify losses precisely. Bare allegations or family‑loan narratives may fail.
- Ensure the trial court makes explicit findings and values for marital assets and, crucially, marital debts/obligations—without those findings an appellate court cannot meaningfully review equitable distribution.
- Owner/party testimony can be sufficient to value real property, but corroboration strengthens the record.
- Seek express indemnity and attorney‑fee provisions where assigning liabilities; courts have authority to enter them.
- Preserve procedural challenges (e.g., probable‑cause issues in contempt petitions) at trial to avoid forfeiture.
- Note Rule 23(b) status of the opinion when citing or relying on it.