In re Marriage of Lange

Overview

This Rule 23 order addresses a dissolution of marriage involving classification of farm property, child support calculation, and parenting time allocation. The Fifth District affirmed the circuit court's classification of the Gorham Farm as marital property, the child support determination, and the joint parenting arrangement, but reversed the denial of petitioner's motion to reopen proofs regarding $110,000 received by respondent post-trial.

Key Facts

• Parties married April 2011; two minor children (J.L. and A.L.)
• Gorham Farm purchased in 2013 for $1,458,000; titled in joint tenancy with approximately $1 million debt
• Respondent used proceeds from a 1031 Exchange (pre-marital property sold in 2008) for the down payment
• Bank required petitioner's name on deed and mortgage as condition of financing
• Parties maintained separate bank accounts throughout marriage; respondent made all farm payments from his account
• Petitioner was primary caretaker for 24 months before dissolution filing; temporary order established 50/50 parenting for 29 months before trial
• Post-trial, respondent received $110,000 from his mother (allegedly loan repayments) before judgment entered

Procedural History

St. Clair County Circuit Court, Judge Stacy L. Campbell presiding. Petition filed September 2019; temporary parenting order entered June 2020; trial held September 2022; judgment entered November 22, 2022. Both parties filed motions to reconsider; petitioner also moved to reopen proofs. Motions denied March 2023. Respondent appealed; petitioner cross-appealed.

Holdings

1. Gorham Farm classification (affirmed): Under manifest weight of the evidence standard, respondent failed to overcome the presumption that placing non-marital funds into jointly-titled property constituted a gift to the marital estate
2. Motion to reopen proofs (reversed): Under abuse of discretion standard, denial was error where $110,000 was received post-trial, respondent's disclosures were vague and inconsistent, and amount was significant to property division
3. Child support (affirmed): Under abuse of discretion standard, court properly averaged fluctuating income over multiple years and noted unaccounted boat sale income
4. Parenting time/decision-making (affirmed): Under manifest weight/abuse of discretion standard, court properly weighed all best interest factors under 750 ILCS 5/602.7, including 29 months of successful shared parenting

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1): Presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital property
• In re Marriage of Rogers: Presumption of gift when non-marital property placed in joint tenancy; overcome only by clear and convincing evidence
• In re Marriage of Hunter factors: Improvements, tax/mortgage payments, occupancy, control/management—but these are not exclusive; donative intent is the focal point
• 750 ILCS 5/602.7: Best interest factors for parenting allocation
• In re Marriage of Freesen: For fluctuating income, averaging at least three prior years is appropriate
• Dowd & Dowd factors for reopening proofs: Reasonable excuse, surprise/prejudice to opponent, importance to movant's case

Practical Implications

• Document non-marital contributions: When using non-marital funds for jointly-titled property, obtain written acknowledgment from spouse that no gift is intended, or explore financing that doesn't require spouse on title
• Bank requirements don't negate gift presumption: Evidence that a bank required joint titling, without showing efforts to find alternative financing, is insufficient to rebut gift presumption
• Temporary orders matter: Extended periods of successful shared parenting under temporary orders carry significant weight in final allocation decisions
• Financial disclosure must be specific: Vague references to family debts without documentation may justify reopening proofs when payments surface post-trial
• Income averaging: For self-employed parties with fluctuating income, expect courts to average multiple years; document all income sources including asset sales

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order with limited precedential value under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1). The court distinguished In re Marriage of Hunter based on the presence of mortgage liability, which may limit application where property is unencumbered. The remand is narrow—limited solely to the $110,000 issue. The parenting analysis is highly fact-specific, emphasizing the particular 29-month track record under the temporary order.