In re Marriage of Rosenberger

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Rosenberger, 2024 IL App (5th) 230157‑U. Petitioner‑Appellee: Michael Rosenberger. Respondent‑Appellant: Dawn Rosenberger.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court’s valuation of husband’s bank accounts and a 2015 Dodge 2500 truck was against the manifest weight of the evidence;
2) Whether the court abused its discretion in allocating marital debt and dividing property;
3) Whether the court erred in calculating husband’s annual gross income for maintenance purposes and imputing income to wife;
4) Whether ordering the wife to submit to quarterly drug testing was against the manifest weight of the evidence;
5) Whether the court abused its discretion by denying the wife’s request for contribution to attorney fees.

- Holding/outcome
The Fifth District affirmed. The trial court’s valuations, division of property and debt, income calculations, order for quarterly drug testing, and denial of additional attorney fees were upheld.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The appellate court applied the manifest‑weight standard to factual determinations (valuations, income) and abuse‑of‑discretion review to property division, custodial/parenting conditions, and fee awards. The record supported the trial court’s factual findings: husband’s bank account balances and pay information were admitted; the truck’s poor condition (281,000 miles, no heater) and indebtedness supported the court’s net valuation; and NADA and dealership evidence were both before the court but the trial judge’s credibility and valuation choices were not unreasonable. The court also credited evidence that husband continued to pay multiple expenses post‑separation (mortgages, child costs), which warranted the property/debt allocations. Husband’s gross monthly income (approximately $19,113.78) was supported by W‑2s, paystub, and a bonus; the court permissibly imputed $24,960 annually to wife given her history, education, ability to work, limited recent earnings, and childcare responsibilities. Given wife’s admitted history of methamphetamine use and multiple relapses (most recently in March 2022), the trial court’s imposition of quarterly drug testing as a parenting‑condition was a reasonable, safety‑based measure. The denial of additional attorney fees was within the court’s discretion given prior interim fee orders and the parties’ relative resources.

- Practice implications
Trial judges receive broad deference on valuations, income findings, property division, parenting conditions, and fee awards. To challenge such rulings on appeal, litigants must build a clear, objective record (appraisals/market guides, contemporaneous account/pay documentation, precise accounting of post‑separation contributions, and corroborated evidence of substance abuse or rehabilitation). Document interim payments/orders and present strong legal grounds showing the trial court’s decision was unreasonable to overcome the high appellate threshold.