In re Marriage of Harper

Overview

This Rule 23 order affirms the circuit court's dissolution judgment in a Cook County divorce. The appellate court upheld the 50/50 division of book royalties and advances from works written during the marriage, the equal split of marital home sale proceeds despite wife's claimed non-marital downpayment contribution, and the denial of wife's dissipation claim against husband.

Key Facts

• Parties married September 15, 2018; one child born November 2019; husband filed for dissolution September 9, 2021
• Wife authored four books during the marriage: "Payback's a Witch," "From Bad to Cursed," "Back in a Spell," and "In Charm's Way"
• Wife claimed $509,867.90 downpayment on Chicago marital home came from sale of Massachusetts property she co-owned with her father before marriage
• Wife filed dissipation notice claiming husband wasted $24,811.48 in marital funds and voluntarily left employment
• Husband testified he left employment to build relationship with minor child during divorce proceedings
• Both parties waived maintenance; child support set at zero with 50/50 expense sharing

Procedural History

Appeal from Circuit Court of Cook County, Domestic Relations Division, Case No. 21 D 7824, Judge Bernadette Barrett presiding. Trial held April 24-27, 2023. Amended judgment for dissolution entered June 28, 2024. Wife's motion to reconsider partially granted (tax liability only) on August 27, 2024. Notice of appeal filed September 6, 2024. First District Appellate Court, Fifth Division, affirmed January 23, 2026.

Holdings

1. Book royalties/advances: No abuse of discretion in awarding husband 50% of income from books written during marriage, including future royalties, advances, and movie/show rights for those specific works. Standard of review: Abuse of discretion.
2. Marital home proceeds: Wife failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that downpayment was not a gift of non-marital funds converted to marital property. Standard of review: Manifest weight of the evidence for property classification.
3. Dissipation claim: Circuit court's denial was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where husband provided sufficient rebuttal through testimony and exhibits. Standard of review: Manifest weight of the evidence.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/503(b): Property acquired after marriage but before dissolution judgment is presumed marital property regardless of title
• 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1): Non-marital property transferred into co-ownership between spouses becomes marital property unless proven by clear and convincing evidence it was not intended as a gift
• 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2): Court may consider dissipation in dividing marital estate
• Key precedent: In re Marriage of Foster, 2014 IL App (1st) 123078 (property classification, dissipation standards)
• Separation without court-ordered legal separation does not change marital property classification—dissolution judgment date controls

Practical Implications

• Creative works during marriage: Books, intellectual property, and similar assets created during marriage are marital property, including all future income streams from those specific works
• Tracing non-marital funds: When using non-marital funds for jointly-titled property, maintain clear documentation and consider written agreements establishing non-gift intent
• Dissipation defense: Detailed testimony and documentary evidence tracing expenditures can successfully rebut dissipation claims; credibility findings are critical
• Voluntary unemployment: Leaving employment for child-bonding purposes during divorce may be found credible and not constitute dissipation
• Separation period: Assets acquired during informal separation remain marital property absent legal separation order

Limitations/Caveats

This is a Rule 23 order with limited precedential value under Supreme Court Rule 23(e)(1). The court's treatment of future royalties from works created during marriage as marital property is fact-specific. The holding on non-marital downpayment conversion depends heavily on the absence of evidence showing funds were kept separate or documented as non-gift contributions. Circuit court credibility determinations were dispositive on dissipation claim.