In re Marriage of Vaccariello

Overview

This case addresses the classification of growth in a premarital profit sharing plan during marriage. The Second District affirmed the trial court's decision to characterize all growth in the wife's profit sharing plan during the marriage as marital property, finding she failed to rebut the statutory presumption with clear and convincing evidence where her only proof consisted of her own testimony and self-prepared calculations without independent verification.

Key Facts

• Parties married September 1, 2015; dissolution petition filed March 13, 2020
• Wife (Elizabeth) had a profit sharing plan from her accounting firm worth approximately $1,034,960 at time of marriage
• Plan value increased to $1.686 million by October 2023
• Wife served as plan administrator with no independent auditor
• Wife claimed funds were "virtually" segregated into marital and nonmarital portions within the pooled plan
• Evidence of segregation consisted solely of wife's handwritten notes on statements and calculations she prepared on company letterhead
• No plan document was submitted to substantiate the alleged virtual segregation process

Procedural History

Circuit Court of Kane County, Judge Kimberly M. DiGiovanni presiding (Case No. 20-D-343). Trial commenced February 27, 2024. Trial court entered judgment May 1, 2024, classifying premarital value as nonmarital but all growth during marriage as marital property. Motion to reconsider denied September 11, 2024. Appeal to Second District Appellate Court.

Holdings

1. Primary Holding: Trial court did not err in characterizing all growth in the profit sharing plan during marriage as marital property. Standard of Review: Manifest weight of the evidence (deferential, given credibility assessments). The court's determination was not unreasonable.
2. Secondary Holding: Wife's alternative arguments regarding 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(1) commingling and 503(c)(2)(A) reimbursement were forfeited for failure to raise them below.
3. Tertiary Holding: Argument that trial court failed to make specific factual findings on values was forfeited for failure to raise below.

Legal Principles

• 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2): Pension benefits (including defined contribution plans like profit sharing plans) acquired or participated in during marriage are presumed marital property. This presumption must be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.
• 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(6): Property acquired before marriage is nonmarital, "except as it relates to retirement plans that may have both marital and non-marital characteristics."
• 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(7): Increase in value of nonmarital property is nonmarital, subject to reimbursement rights.
• Court distinguished older cases (In re Marriage of DiAngelo, In re Marriage of Leisner) as predating the 1999 addition of Section 503(b)(2).
• Cited In re Marriage of McLean, 2025 IL App (5th) 250094 for proper analytical framework under current statute.
• Evidentiary standard: Uncorroborated, self-serving testimony without supporting documentation (account records, deposit slips, independent verification) is insufficient to constitute clear and convincing evidence. See In re Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL App (1st) 190994.

Practical Implications

• Documentation is critical: When claiming premarital retirement account growth as nonmarital, practitioners must present independent, third-party verification—not just client-prepared calculations
• Plan documents matter: Submit the actual plan document to substantiate claims about how funds are segregated or allocated within the plan
• Section 503(b)(2) controls for retirement plans: Do not rely solely on pre-1999 case law applying Section 503(a)(7); the presumption in 503(b)(2) specifically addresses pension benefits
• Expert testimony advisable: Consider retaining an independent accountant or actuary to trace and verify nonmarital contributions and growth
• Preserve arguments below: Commingling (503(c)(1)) and reimbursement (503(c)(2)) arguments must be specifically raised at trial and in post-trial motions to avoid forfeiture
• Counterargument potential: When opposing nonmarital claims, emphasize lack of independent verification, self-interest of party-prepared documents, and the clear-and-convincing standard

Limitations/Caveats

• Rule 23 Order: This is an unpublished order filed under Supreme Court Rule 23(b) and is not precedent except in limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1)
• The holding is fact-specific to situations where the party claiming nonmarital status has sole control over the asset and provides only self-generated documentation
• The court did not reach the merits of the Section 503(c) commingling/reimbursement analysis due to forfeiture—those issues remain open for properly preserved cases
• No transcript existed for the motion to reconsider hearing, which contributed to the forfeiture finding under Foutch v. O'Bryant