In re Marriage of Grant

Overview

In this second appeal from the same dissolution, the Fifth District held that the Union County circuit court failed to follow the mandate of In re Marriage of Grant , 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U, by again dividing the bulk of the marital estate 50/50, awarding only $328 per month in maintenance, and refusing to secure maintenance. Invoking Illinois Supreme Court Rule 366(a)(5) , the court reversed the July 16, 2024, judgment in its entirety and itself fixed a 60/40 property split, $1,074 per month lifetime maintenance, and life insurance security. The postjudgment attorney fee award of $6,000 was also reversed as an abuse of discretion and remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Key Facts

25-year marriage; both parties age 62 and in good health at the time of judgment.

Debbie: associate's degree, homemaker/stay-at-home mother, sporadic part-time work; after separation worked full time at $14/hour (~$2,600/month gross).

Todd: college degree, long-time general manager of the family auto dealership, later an SIU-C assistant professor working nine months per year; imputed gross income of $5,194/month.

Todd held a nonmarital 1/9 interest in GHG, LLC, which he valued at $250,000, and had received $833/month in rental income until shortly after the divorce filing.

Marital home sold for approximately $240,000; each party took $59,000, with $119,216 held in trust. Debbie had $24,000 left; Todd had $50,000. An $8,000 credit card debt was never allocated.

Marital accounts (2021 values): Fidelity IRA $587,808.41; Fidelity Roth $23,595.37; SURS-Voya $69,684.05; Dodge & Cox $55,000.17.

On remand the court applied 60/40 only to the Dodge & Cox account and trust remainder, leaving the other accounts at 50/50 — a net benefit to Debbie of only $5,500.

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Union County, No. 19-D-39 (Judge Amanda Byassee Gott). After a two-day trial, a February 15, 2022, judgment was reversed in In re Marriage of Grant , 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U. On remand, the court initially set an evidentiary hearing but granted Debbie's motion to reconsider under section 503(h) and entered a new judgment July 16, 2024, without further evidence or argument. Both parties' postjudgment motions were denied; their separate appeals were consolidated.

Holdings

The circuit court abused its discretion (and failed to follow the mandate) by dividing the marital estate inequitably — omitting Todd's $250,000 nonmarital asset from the allocation analysis, the post-distribution bank balances, and the marital credit card debt. The appellate court ordered 60% of the marital accounts and 60% of the home proceeds to Debbie, with Todd paying the $27,000 Porsche credit, $3,000 in fees, and $4,000 (half) of the credit card debt.

The $328/month maintenance award was inadequate, unjust, and an abuse of discretion . The court annualized Debbie's income over nine months ($1,950/month), added 50% of the $833 imputed income from the nonmarital asset to Todd ($5,610.50/month), and set guideline lifetime maintenance at $1,074/month, with a defined self-executing mechanism if rental income resumes.

Failure to secure maintenance was an abuse of discretion; Todd must name Debbie sole beneficiary of his ~$50,000 SIU-C life policy until she collects Social Security retirement.

The $6,000 fee award was an abuse of discretion: no section 503(j) findings, reliance on counsel's unsworn argument, and reliance on the judge's personal practice experience rather than competent evidence.

Legal Principles

750 ILCS 5/503(a) (specific factual findings required); 503(d) factors; 503(h) (no revaluation on remand absent direction/good cause); 503(j)(2) (contribution based on 503 and 504 criteria); 504(a); 508(a). In re Marriage of Ludwinski , 329 Ill. App. 3d 1149 — the circuit court must follow the mandate "to the letter." In re Marriage of Brackett , 309 Ill. App. 3d 329 — the Act permits property in lieu of maintenance but not maintenance in lieu of property. In re Marriage of Heroy , 2017 IL 120205 — inability to pay does not require a $0 balance. In re Marriage of Andres , 2021 IL App (2d) 191146 — reasonableness factors. Notably, the court took judicial notice of a published 4% CD rate to impute income from a nonmarital asset.

Practical Implications

Use Brackett to resist trial courts that justify a near-equal property split by pointing to a maintenance award.

Nonmarital property must be affirmatively reflected in the 503(d) analysis, and its income-producing capacity can be imputed for maintenance purposes — build a record on rates of return.

Where a payor's income is annualized over nine months, argue the same treatment for the recipient; here it materially raised maintenance.

Fee contribution petitions require competent evidence: file detailed affidavits, request opposing counsel's billing rates, and demand express 503(j) findings. A judge's own practice experience is not a substitute for evidence.

Caution: agreeing that "no new evidence is needed" on remand under 503(h) may foreclose the argument you later wish to make.

Rule 366(a)(5) is a viable request where the record is developed and repeated remands would waste resources.

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23(b) order — not precedential except under Rule 23(e)(1), and subject to correction before rehearing. The 60/40 split and $1,074 figure are fact-bound exercises of Rule 366 authority, not generally applicable rules. The court expressly declined to deviate upward from guidelines and expressly limited its treatment of Todd's business interests to the $250,000 figure because the record on GHG Farms, LLC was undeveloped.