In re Marriage of Ballinger

Overview

In In re Marriage of Ballinger , 2026 IL App (5th) 250139-U, the Fifth District affirmed a Shelby County judgment awarding the wife $2,053.17 per month in maintenance for 38 years, a near-equal division of a roughly $858,000 marital estate, and $3,000 in interim attorney fees. The husband's appellate arguments were largely forfeited under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) for failure to cite supporting authority, and the court found no abuse of discretion in the maintenance award.

Key Facts

Parties married April 28, 1984; husband petitioned for dissolution November 17, 2022 — a 38-year marriage.

All three children were adults; no child support, parenting time, or allocation issues.

Husband's income, including regularly received bonuses , was substantially greater than wife's.

Wife left a higher-paying job for lower-paying employment (she asserted a hostile workplace); the circuit court nonetheless calculated maintenance using her prior, higher income.

Property division: Husband $427,528.23; Wife $430,670.46 (a $3,142.23 difference).

Court found wife could not support herself at the marital standard of living; no earning-capacity impairments for either party.

Interim fees of $3,000 awarded to wife (Sept. 10, 2024); otherwise each party bore own fees.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Shelby County (Judge Douglas J. Jarman), No. 22-DC-28. Cross-petitions for dissolution; interim fee petition granted September 10, 2024; evidentiary hearing September 23, 2024, with written closings; judgment entered January 23, 2025. Husband filed a timely notice of appeal February 21, 2025, to the Fifth District.

Holdings

Maintenance award affirmed. Reviewed for abuse of discretion ; the circuit court expressly addressed each § 504(a) factor (though not required to) and its balancing was reasonable.

Argument that bonuses should be paid as a percentage rather than included in gross income was forfeited ; Micheli does not require a percentage model and in fact reversed an uncapped percentage award.

Challenge to the 38-year duration forfeited; § 504(b-1)(1)(B) authorizes a term equal to the marriage length (or indefinite) for marriages of 20+ years.

Claim that the court failed to impute wife's higher income fails on the record — the court used the higher income.

Property division and interim fee challenges forfeited : citing only the standard of review is not "argument."

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/504(a)(1)-(14) (factors); 750 ILCS 5/504(b-1)(1)(B) (duration for 20+ year marriages). In re Marriage of Bradley , 2011 IL App (4th) 110392, ¶ 36 (no equal weighting required; no specific findings required; benchmark is recipient's reasonable needs measured by the marital standard of living). In re Marriage of Micheli , 2014 IL App (2d) 121245, ¶¶ 25-26 (maintenance is not equitable distribution of post-marital income; uncapped bonus percentages risk a windfall). Rosenbaum v. Samler , 2025 IL App (1st) 240039, ¶ 47, and Rule 341(h)(7) (forfeiture). Standard of review for property division ( Polsky ) and fees ( Patel ): abuse of discretion.

Practical Implications

Cite Micheli defensively: a payor cannot demand percentage-of-bonus treatment; including regular bonuses in gross income is permissible.

For long marriages, expect duration equal to the marriage; a payor's desire to retire "someday" is not a basis to shorten a term — pursue § 510 modification later instead.

Trial judges should make explicit § 504(a) findings; doing so substantially insulates the award on review.

Appellants: reciting the standard of review alone forfeits the issue. Marshal record facts and substantive authority for each argument.

A ~$3,000 disparity in an $858,000 estate is plainly within discretion; disproportionality arguments need real numbers and authority.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23(b) order — not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1) (law of the case, res judicata, collateral estoppel, double jeopardy). Most "holdings" rest on forfeiture, so the court never reached the merits of the property division or interim fee award; those discussions are not substantive guidance. The Micheli discussion of bonus/windfall principles is persuasive dicta here.