In re Marriage of Zechman

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Zechman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230003‑U (2d Dist. Aug. 21, 2024) (consolidated Nos. 2‑23‑0003 & 2‑23‑0127). Petitioner‑Appellee: Allison Zechman. Respondent‑Appellant: Adam Zechman. (Filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(b); non‑precedential.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court erred in finding Adam voluntarily underemployed and in imputing employment income ($89,000/yr).
2. Whether the court erred in calculating and imputing annual “gift” income ($99,528) to Adam, including reliance on an earlier financial affidavit.
3. Whether the court erred by not imputing gift income to Allison.
4. Whether Adam timely appealed the trial court’s indirect civil contempt and attorney‑fee orders.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the dissolution order (maintenance $1,228/mo; child support $729/mo), including imputations of employment and gift income to Adam, and affirmed the trial court’s discretionary choices concerning maintenance duration. Adam’s appeal of the contempt/fee orders was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction due to an untimely notice of appeal.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: maintenance/child support decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings reversed only if against manifest weight.
- Voluntary underemployment: substantial evidence supported the finding — Adam had prior executive compensation ($90k–$300k), testified he would not seek similar employment and chose Apple for lifestyle reasons, and presented no objective barriers (mental‑health history did not establish incapacity). Imputed $89,000 was below historic earnings and therefore reasonable.
- Gift income: trial court permissibly relied in part on Adam’s earlier (Feb. 2020) affidavit to calculate recurring financial assistance he historically received; the trial court did not err in the amount it imputed.
- Imputing to Allison: the court declined to impute gift income to petitioner and instead exercised discretion by shortening maintenance duration consistent with equitable considerations.
- Contempt appeal: dismissal for lack of jurisdiction because appellant failed to timely file a Rule 304(b)(5) appeal from the contempt/fee orders.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Prepare evidentiary proof to rebut imputation: document job searches, applications, medical limitations, and realistic earning capacity. Testimony that a party voluntarily refuses higher‑paying work is highly damaging.
- Financial affidavits are cumulative — earlier affidavits can be used to establish historical gifts/support. Inconsistencies should be explained or mitigated.
- If seeking imputation of third‑party support (gifts), present clear evidence of predictability and source; courts may instead adjust maintenance duration rather than imputing income.
- Strictly comply with appellate timing rules (e.g., Rule 304(b)(5)) for contempt/fee orders to preserve appellate jurisdiction.