In re Marriage of Gerber, 2024 IL App (2d) 220244‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Gerber, No. 2‑22‑0244, 2024 IL App (2d) 220244‑U (Order filed June 10, 2024) (Rule 23(b) — not precedent).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Lawrence Gerber. Respondent‑Appellee: Laura Gerber.

2) Key legal issues
- Proper valuation of marital business interests where two related entities (Scholarships.com and American Student Marketing, LLC) were operated as a consolidated enterprise and a family trust held a formal minority interest.
- Whether post‑separation payments of attorney fees (incurred before the marriage’s irretrievable breakdown but paid afterward) constitute dissipation of marital assets.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s valuation of the parties’ businesses (accepting the court‑appointed expert’s consolidated valuation).
- The court reversed the trial court’s finding that payment of attorney fees (incurred pre‑breakdown but paid after the breakdown) constituted dissipation.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: trial court valuation will not be disturbed unless against the manifest weight of the evidence. Where experts provide conflicting but supported valuations, a trial court may adopt a value within that range.
- The trial court appointed a neutral valuation expert (pursuant to the Act) who concluded Scholarships and ASM functioned as one economic enterprise despite separate legal forms. That expert found the parties effectively exercised “constructive ownership” over the trusts’ formal 48% interest because distributions historically funneled ~86% of profits to the parties. Treating the two entities as a consolidated business produced a 100% enterprise valuation ($9.798M), with a minority/marketability discount applied to the trusts’ shares (industry standard ≈30%), yielding the marital shares accepted by the court.
- The appellate court held those valuation choices were supported by evidence and within the experts’ ranges, so not against the manifest weight of evidence.
- On dissipation, the court emphasized timing and substance: dissipation requires depletion/waste of marital assets after the marriage’s irretrievable breakdown (often with intent to defeat the spouse’s interest). Expenses incurred before the breakdown do not become dissipation merely because they were paid after the breakdown.

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Be prepared to have related entities treated as a single economic enterprise; courts will look to the parties’ economic realities (distribution practices, intercompany flows), not only legal form.
- When valuing business interests, provide robust support for (or rebuttal to) marketability/minority discounts and use of consolidated vs. separate valuations; court‑appointed experts can be decisive.
- On dissipation claims, focus on when the obligation was incurred and whether post‑breakdown transfers were intended to defeat the other spouse’s interest; late payment of pre‑breakdown obligations alone is unlikely to be treated as dissipation.
- Note: this is a Rule 23(b) order and has limited precedential effect.