In re Marriage of Tate

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Tate, 2024 IL App (3d) 230315-U (Order filed Oct. 29, 2024) (Rule 23 — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Marsha Tate. Respondent‑Appellee: Wesley Tate.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether payments respondent received under UBS’s ALFA (Aspiring Legacy Financial Advisors) program constitute “employment income” under the dissolution judgment (and therefore are subject to a post‑decree maintenance formula: 40% of respondent’s monies above $450,000), or whether they are proceeds from a sale/transition of respondent’s book of business and thus excluded from the maintenance calculation.
- Whether the trial court’s declaratory judgment on that question was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in finding ALFA payments were sale/transition proceeds (not employment income) and thus not subject to the maintenance formula. The grant of respondent’s motion for declaratory judgment was affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court applied the manifest‑weight standard and interpreted the judgment’s defined term “monies received by [respondent]” (which included “employment income including salary, bonuses, incentive loans and awards in the form of loans from his employment, commissions, and investment income from all sources *”) against the evidentiary record.
- Documentary evidence and testimony showed ALFA is a two‑phase retirement/transition program (ALFA Plus/ALFA Core) that: (a) allows legacy advisors to execute a commitment and receive upfront cash loans tied to trailing production; (b) pays legacy advisors based on transferred account production over a defined multi‑year period; and (c) functions to transition client accounts and reduce outstanding UBS promissory‑note indebtedness.
- The pre‑decree judgment expressly allocated UBS‑loan indebtedness to respondent and noted ALFA would reduce that indebtedness upon retirement/participation. Given ALFA’s character as compensation tied to transition/retirement and reduction of loan balances (i.e., economic equivalent of sale proceeds for the book), the trial court reasonably concluded those payments were not ordinary employment compensation subject to maintenance.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Draft dissolution orders to define “income”/“employment income” explicitly to include or exclude contingent/retirement/transition payments (ETP/ALFA, upfront loans, book‑transition proceeds).
- Anticipate employer programs that blur sale‑of‑practice and compensation (upfront loans, forgiveness, post‑employment payments); litigate characterization at decree or by declaratory judgment with company plan documents and paystubs.
- Allocate employer loan liabilities and address how program payments will interact with maintenance or property division to avoid post‑decree disputes.
- Use targeted discovery (employment contracts, compensation plans, paystubs, UBS communications) and expert testimony on industry compensation structures.
- Note Rule 23 status: persuasive but limited precedent.