In re Marriage of Schonert

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Schonert, 2025 IL App (4th) 241115-U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Aug. 20, 2025) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner-Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Samantha M. Schonert (n/k/a Samantha Thorne). Respondent‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Scott A. Schonert.

- Key legal issues
1. Classification of vehicles (whether Samantha’s 1969 Ford Mustang and Scott’s 1970 Chevrolet Blazer are marital or nonmarital property).
2. Whether the trial court properly decided maintenance (including retroactivity) and whether it made the statutory findings required by 750 ILCS 5/504(b‑2).
3. Division of Caterpillar pensions and entry of a QDRO.
4. Award (or denial) of attorney fees related to a petition for rule to show cause.

- Holding / outcome (concise)
The appellate court: affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It reversed the trial court’s finding that the 1969 Ford Mustang was marital property, affirmed that the 1970 Chevrolet Blazer was marital property, vacated the maintenance ruling and remanded for proper statutory findings under section 504(b‑2), affirmed equal division of the parties’ pensions (to be handled by a QDRO), and affirmed denial of respondent’s request for attorney fees on his show‑cause petition.

- Significant legal reasoning (key points)
- Property classification: The court concluded the trial court’s classification of Samantha’s 1969 Mustang as marital was against the manifest weight of the evidence. Restoration during marriage, without sufficient proof of commingling, transmutation, or marital contribution traceable to marital funds, did not establish marital status. By contrast, the show Blazer had substantial marital investment and improvements during the marriage tied to marital activity, supporting its classification as marital property.
- Maintenance: The appellate court found an abuse of discretion because the trial court failed to make required, specific factual findings under 750 ILCS 5/504(b‑2) addressing statutory factors for awarding maintenance. The court was also concerned that the trial court’s effective denial appeared to operate as a sanction for alleged misrepresentation about retirement accounts rather than as a reasoned statutory determination. Remand requires the trial court to reconsider maintenance (and any retroactive award) based on the record and to enter explicit 504(b‑2) findings.
- Pensions & fees: The pension division (equal split via QDRO) and denial of respondent’s attorney fees were upheld.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways)
- For maintenance hearings, obtain and press for explicit 504(b‑2) findings on the record; a lack of findings invites reversal and remand.
- For property classification disputes, meticulously document source of funds, timing, and any agreement or commingling showing transmutation of premarital assets. Restoration work alone may be insufficient to convert nonmarital property.
- Ensure complete, accurate financ ial disclosures (IRAs/401(k) values); inaccuracies may hurt credibility, but courts must not substitute sanctions for statutory analysis.
- When dividing pensions, prepare for a QDRO and raise valuation/retirement‑date issues at trial.
- When seeking or resisting attorney fees tied to show‑cause or contempt matters, preserve clear evidentiary proof linking damages/fees to the order.