In re Marriage of Vician

In re Marriage of Vician, 2025 IL App (3d) 240493‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Aug. 26, 2025) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential).

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Vician, 2025 IL App (3d) 240493‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Gary Vician. Respondent‑Appellee: Kathleen Vician. (Order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 — may not be cited as precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s valuation of petitioner’s marital interest in respondent’s work‑related retirement savings account (a 403(b) savings account) was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by directing respondent to pay petitioner via $50/month installments rather than requiring a lump sum or offsetting petitioner’s other payments to respondent.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s factual valuation: petitioner’s pre‑tax share = $22,699.74; after applying petitioner’s stated 28% tax rate, the court awarded $16,343.81 and ordered respondent to pay $50/month until paid in full.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: factual findings from an evidentiary hearing reviewed for manifest weight; property‑distribution/payment schedule reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Credibility/weight: trial court credited the certified public accountant’s (Graham) detailed calculations based on actual account statements (balances, annual returns, asset allocation) over petitioner’s own estimate‑based computation. Reweighing competing calculations would improperly substitute appellate judgment for the trial court’s credibility determinations.
- Tax consequences: the account was treated as a 403(b), taxed on withdrawal; trial court adjusted the award using petitioner’s testified 28% tax rate.
- Payment schedule: trial court’s installment structure was within its discretion given respondent’s financial circumstances (retired, limited net monthly cash flow, outstanding debts and attorney fees); appellate court found no abuse of discretion despite petitioner’s objection that payment would take decades.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft QDROs to cover all retirement vehicles (pension and savings/403(b)) at time of settlement; confirm submission and acceptance by plan administrators.
- Preserve documentary evidence (account statements, allocation, historical returns) and use a qualified forensic/accountant to support valuation; courts will favor detailed, document‑based calculations over party estimates.
- Address tax character of accounts in the settlement and QDRO, and specify whether division is gross or net (and who bears taxes on distribution).
- If a party delays enforcement, promptly seek QDRO entry and plan notice; request lump‑sum relief, offsets, or security when delay or age/need makes installment terms inequitable and be prepared to show financial ability to absorb offsets.
- Rule 23 caution: decision non‑precedential; useful persuasive authority on valuation/credibility principles but not binding law.