In re Marriage of Grant
Nonprecedential Rule 23(b) written order. Because it was entered on or after January 1, 2021, it may be cited for persuasive purposes under Rule 23(e)(1), but it is not binding precedent. Status is based on the stored -U public-domain citation; verify the official disposition and later docket history.
Case Analysis
Overview
On a second appeal, the Fifth District held that the circuit court failed to comply with the mandate in In re Marriage of Grant , 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U, by again dividing the marital estate inequitably, awarding inadequate maintenance, and failing to secure maintenance. Invoking Rule 366(a)(5), the court itself fixed a 60/40 property split and lifetime maintenance of $1,074 per month, reversed the $6,000 postjudgment fee award as an abuse of discretion, and remanded with detailed instructions.
Key Facts
25-year marriage; both parties 62 and in good health. Debbie was a homemaker with an associate's degree earning $14/hour (approx. $2,600/month); Todd, a former dealership general manager, was an SIU-C assistant professor with gross monthly income found at $5,194.
Todd held a nonmarital 1/9 interest in GHG, LLC valued at $250,000, which had generated $833/month in rental income that ceased shortly after the divorce filing.
Marital home sold for approximately $240,000; each party took $59,000 interim distributions (Debbie retained $24,000, Todd $50,000); $119,216 remained in trust. An $8,000 credit card debt went unaddressed.
On remand the court took no new evidence or argument (granting Debbie's motion relying on section 503(h)) and applied 50/50 to the main marital accounts (approx. $682,000), 60/40 only to the $55,000 Dodge & Cox account, and again set maintenance at $328/month with no life insurance security.
Debbie sought $29,417 in postjudgment fees; the court awarded $6,000 plus costs, relying on its own practice experience regarding customary rates.
Procedural History
Union County circuit court (No. 19-D-39, Judge Amanda Byassee Gott). After a 2021–22 trial and a 2022 dissolution judgment reversed in In re Marriage of Grant , 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U, the court entered a new judgment on July 16, 2024, and denied cross motions to reconsider. Both parties appealed; the appeals were consolidated.
Holdings
The circuit court abused its discretion and violated the mandate by failing to allocate the marital estate equitably—omitting consideration of Todd's $250,000 nonmarital asset, the disparate remaining home-sale proceeds, and the marital debt; at least a 60/40 split of all marital accounts was required (abuse of discretion; valuations reviewed for manifest weight).
The $328/month maintenance award was inadequate, unjust, and an abuse of discretion; the court imputed $833/month income potential (4% return on the $250,000 nonmarital asset, 50% allocated), annualized Debbie's income on a nine-month basis, and set lifetime maintenance at $1,074/month.
Failure to secure lifetime maintenance was an abuse of discretion; Todd must name Debbie sole beneficiary of his $50,000 SIU-C life policy until she draws Social Security retirement.
The postjudgment fee award was an abuse of discretion for lack of statutory findings and for reliance on the judge's personal practice experience rather than competent evidence; remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/503(a), (d), (h), (j)(2); 504(a); 505; 508(a). Mandate compliance: In re Marriage of Ludwinski , 329 Ill. App. 3d 1149. Equitable, not equal, division: In re Marriage of Smith , 2012 IL App (2d) 110522; In re Marriage of Heroy , 385 Ill. App. 3d 640; In re Marriage of Brackett , 309 Ill. App. 3d 329 (property is the primary means of providing for future needs; the Act allows property in lieu of maintenance, not maintenance in lieu of property). Also Rosen , Hubbs , Johnson , Hamilton , Bostrom , O'Brien , Wojcik , Walker , Nesbitt , Shen , Heroy (2017 IL 120205), Thomas , Andres , Aurora Loan Services (judicial notice).
Practical Implications
Cite this order where a trial court uses maintenance as a substitute for an equitable property split— Brackett 's "no maintenance in lieu of property" rule is the lever.
A payor's nonmarital asset must be weighed both under section 503(d) and as income-producing capacity for section 504; the court imputed a 4% return via judicial notice of published CD rates.
Where the payor's salary is annualized over 12 months from 9 months' work, argue for parallel treatment of the payee's income.
Build "automatic increase" maintenance clauses with a self-executing formula, notice deadline, and proposed order—the court supplied a template (30-day petition, 21-day response).
Fee petitions require competent evidence; judges may not substitute their own practice experience for proof of customary rates, and opposing counsel's unsworn argument is not evidence—demand affidavits and the opponent's own billing records.
Caution: invoking section 503(h) to bar new evidence can lock in stale values; consider whether updated valuations serve your client.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1); text subject to change before rehearing. The relief is heavily fact-bound and rests on the panel's stated "great familiarity" with the record and Rule 366(a)(5) authority; the 4% imputed-return methodology and refusal to deviate upward from guidelines are case-specific and arguably persuasive dicta rather than transferable rules.
Overview
On a second appeal, the Fifth District held that the circuit court failed to comply with the mandate in In re Marriage of Grant , 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U, by again dividing the marital estate inequitably, awarding inadequate maintenance, and failing to secure maintenance. Invoking Rule 366(a)(5), the court itself fixed a 60/40 property split and lifetime maintenance of $1,074 per month, reversed the $6,000 postjudgment fee award as an abuse of discretion, and remanded with detailed instructions.
Key Facts
25-year marriage; both parties 62 and in good health. Debbie was a homemaker with an associate's degree earning $14/hour (approx. $2,600/month); Todd, a former dealership general manager, was an SIU-C assistant professor with gross monthly income found at $5,194.
Todd held a nonmarital 1/9 interest in GHG, LLC valued at $250,000, which had generated $833/month in rental income that ceased shortly after the divorce filing.
Marital home sold for approximately $240,000; each party took $59,000 interim distributions (Debbie retained $24,000, Todd $50,000); $119,216 remained in trust. An $8,000 credit card debt went unaddressed.
On remand the court took no new evidence or argument (granting Debbie's motion relying on section 503(h)) and applied 50/50 to the main marital accounts (approx. $682,000), 60/40 only to the $55,000 Dodge & Cox account, and again set maintenance at $328/month with no life insurance security.
Debbie sought $29,417 in postjudgment fees; the court awarded $6,000 plus costs, relying on its own practice experience regarding customary rates.
Procedural History
Union County circuit court (No. 19-D-39, Judge Amanda Byassee Gott). After a 2021–22 trial and a 2022 dissolution judgment reversed in In re Marriage of Grant , 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U, the court entered a new judgment on July 16, 2024, and denied cross motions to reconsider. Both parties appealed; the appeals were consolidated.
Holdings
The circuit court abused its discretion and violated the mandate by failing to allocate the marital estate equitably—omitting consideration of Todd's $250,000 nonmarital asset, the disparate remaining home-sale proceeds, and the marital debt; at least a 60/40 split of all marital accounts was required (abuse of discretion; valuations reviewed for manifest weight).
The $328/month maintenance award was inadequate, unjust, and an abuse of discretion; the court imputed $833/month income potential (4% return on the $250,000 nonmarital asset, 50% allocated), annualized Debbie's income on a nine-month basis, and set lifetime maintenance at $1,074/month.
Failure to secure lifetime maintenance was an abuse of discretion; Todd must name Debbie sole beneficiary of his $50,000 SIU-C life policy until she draws Social Security retirement.
The postjudgment fee award was an abuse of discretion for lack of statutory findings and for reliance on the judge's personal practice experience rather than competent evidence; remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
Legal Principles
750 ILCS 5/503(a), (d), (h), (j)(2); 504(a); 505; 508(a). Mandate compliance: In re Marriage of Ludwinski , 329 Ill. App. 3d 1149. Equitable, not equal, division: In re Marriage of Smith , 2012 IL App (2d) 110522; In re Marriage of Heroy , 385 Ill. App. 3d 640; In re Marriage of Brackett , 309 Ill. App. 3d 329 (property is the primary means of providing for future needs; the Act allows property in lieu of maintenance, not maintenance in lieu of property). Also Rosen , Hubbs , Johnson , Hamilton , Bostrom , O'Brien , Wojcik , Walker , Nesbitt , Shen , Heroy (2017 IL 120205), Thomas , Andres , Aurora Loan Services (judicial notice).
Practical Implications
Cite this order where a trial court uses maintenance as a substitute for an equitable property split— Brackett 's "no maintenance in lieu of property" rule is the lever.
A payor's nonmarital asset must be weighed both under section 503(d) and as income-producing capacity for section 504; the court imputed a 4% return via judicial notice of published CD rates.
Where the payor's salary is annualized over 12 months from 9 months' work, argue for parallel treatment of the payee's income.
Build "automatic increase" maintenance clauses with a self-executing formula, notice deadline, and proposed order—the court supplied a template (30-day petition, 21-day response).
Fee petitions require competent evidence; judges may not substitute their own practice experience for proof of customary rates, and opposing counsel's unsworn argument is not evidence—demand affidavits and the opponent's own billing records.
Caution: invoking section 503(h) to bar new evidence can lock in stale values; consider whether updated valuations serve your client.
Limitations/Caveats
Rule 23 order—not precedent except under Rule 23(e)(1); text subject to change before rehearing. The relief is heavily fact-bound and rests on the panel's stated "great familiarity" with the record and Rule 366(a)(5) authority; the 4% imputed-return methodology and refusal to deviate upward from guidelines are case-specific and arguably persuasive dicta rather than transferable rules.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Questions About Maintenance?
Start with a conflict-check intake. If cleared, our office can discuss the statutory factors and financial information.
Start Conflict-Check IntakeLegal Assistant
This tool answers general questions about the text of this summary. It does not give legal advice, it does not know the facts of your case, and its answers may be wrong.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.