In re Marriage of Aleman-Mistar

Overview

The First District affirmed the trial court's judgment of dissolution, rejecting the husband's challenges to the imputation of $100,000 annual income and the distribution of marital assets. The appellate court's decision rested primarily on the husband's failure to provide a transcript or adequate record on appeal, triggering the Foutch presumption that the trial court ruled correctly.

Key Facts

• Husband operated a sign fabrication business; claimed income of $50,000-$55,000 annually
• Trial court found business bank deposits averaged approximately $185,000 annually over five years
• Court found husband failed to maintain adequate business records and did not credibly account for cash transactions
• Husband had stopped paying temporary maintenance without authorization and was held in contempt
• Marital assets included proceeds from home sale (awarded to wife) and husband's business (valued at $80,000, awarded to husband)

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 2020 D 8130, Judge H. Yvonne Coleman presiding. Following trial, the court entered a judgment of dissolution. Husband appealed to the First District Appellate Court, Second Division, without providing a transcript, stipulation, or bystander's report.

Holdings

1. Income Imputation: Affirmed. Under abuse of discretion review, the court properly imputed $100,000 gross annual income where husband attempted to evade support obligations and failed to provide credible evidence of actual income.
2. Asset Distribution: Affirmed. The unequal distribution favoring wife was justified by husband's contempt for failing to pay maintenance and wife's economic insecurity. No requirement exists that courts explicitly state each asset's value in the written order.

Legal Principles

• Income Imputation: Courts may impute income when a spouse: (1) becomes voluntarily unemployed; (2) tries to evade support obligations; or (3) unreasonably fails to take advantage of business opportunities. In re Marriage of Van Hoveln, 2018 IL App (4th) 180112; In re Marriage of Blume, 2016 IL App (3d) 140276.
• Credibility in Income Determination: Trial courts may consider a party's "credibility and forthrightness in disclosing income." In re Marriage of Sweet, 316 Ill. App. 3d 101 (2000).
• Incomplete Record: Under Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389 (1984), appellate courts presume the trial court ruled correctly when the record is incomplete.
• Equitable Distribution: "Equitable" does not mean "equal." In re Marriage of Thomas, 239 Ill. App. 3d 992 (1993).

Practical Implications

• Document everything: When opposing a self-employed spouse, subpoena bank records, contracts, and third-party payment records—cash businesses require heightened scrutiny
• Preserve the record: Always order transcripts; without them, appellate review is nearly impossible under Foutch
• Contempt matters: Prior contempt findings can justify unequal asset distribution and support income imputation arguments
• Attack credibility explicitly: Request specific findings on credibility regarding financial disclosures to support imputation
• Counterargument: If representing the higher-earning spouse, provide comprehensive business records and expert testimony on industry-standard profit margins to rebut imputation

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order with no precedential value except under the limited circumstances of Rule 23(e)(1). The outcome was heavily driven by the husband's failure to provide an adequate appellate record—practitioners should not rely on this case for substantive propositions about income imputation methodology. The court's discussion of the 35% profit margin argument is dicta, as it was rejected for lack of evidentiary support rather than on the merits.