In re Marriage of Robbins

- 1) Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Robbins, 2024 IL App (3d) 230399-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Sept. 26, 2024; modified Dec. 5, 2024). Notice under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 23 (nonprecedential). Petitioner–Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Leslie Gray Robbins. Respondent–Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Edward West Robbins.

- 2) Key legal issues
1. Whether a Roth IRA converted to Roth status before marriage (and without evidentiary proof of contributions during marriage) is nonmarital property or marital property subject to division.
2. Whether the wife presented a prima facie case of dissipation (use of marital assets for a nonmarital purpose) such that the burden shifted to the husband.

- 3) Holding / outcome
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s characterization of the Roth IRA as marital property (finding the trial court’s conclusion against the manifest weight of the evidence) and held that the trial court erred in ruling the wife failed to make a prima facie showing of dissipation. The cause was reversed and remanded with directions for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

- 4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- On the Roth IRA: Evidence showed the IRA was converted to Roth status in 2002 (pre‑marriage), a 2007 statement indicated the account value was $80,000 in May 2006 (just before the 2006 marriage), and the husband repeatedly testified that no Roth contributions were made during the marriage; later account statements (2013–2022) likewise showed no contributions. The trial court nonetheless treated the account as marital because it found tracing insufficient. The appellate court held that the trial court’s finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence — the record supported nonmarital characterization absent credible proof of marital contributions/commingling.
- On dissipation: The husband admitted withdrawing roughly $158,000 from a brokerage account during a 15‑month period, transferring funds to his checking account, and using funds for living expenses and attorney fees. The trial court initially granted a directed finding for the husband (finding no prima facie dissipation) but later partially reconsidered. The appellate court concluded the trial court erred in concluding the wife failed to make a prima facie showing; evidence of withdrawals and spending on attorney fees/personal obligations was sufficient to require the husband to rebut.

- 5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Tracing: preserve and introduce conversion forms, continuous account statements showing pre‑marital balances, and documentary proof (tax worksheets, broker records) to establish a pre‑marital basis. Continuous records are critical — gaps invite factual attacks.
- Dissipation claims: document withdrawals, destination accounts, and actual expenditures (attorney fees, personal payments). Texts/emails and bank/credit‑card records can establish nonmarital purpose or secret use. A clear showing of withdrawals used for nonmarital purposes (including spouse’s litigation costs) can shift the burden to the withdrawing party.
- Litigation strategy: anticipate directed‑finding motions at close of plaintiff’s case; build a prima facie record tying withdrawals to nonmarital uses. On appeal, manifest‑weight review will examine whether the trial court’s factual conclusions were supported by the record.