Case
In re Marriage of Erin Werhun & Jeffrey Werhun, App. Ct. of Ill., 3rd Dist., Order filed Oct. 29, 2025, No. 3-25-0201 (18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County, No. 20-D-1952). Judgment delivered by Justice Peterson; Justices Hettel and Bertani concurred.
Posture & Background (concise)
Erin appealed the dissolution judgment dissolving a marriage of ~10 years, 10 months (married Dec. 20, 2009; petition Oct. 29, 2020). There is one child (b. 2018). The record includes a GAL report, a Section 604.10(c) evaluation by Dr. Louis Kraus, supervised visitation through Family Solutions, evidence of substantial post‑separation asset transfers/sales, contested maintenance, property valuation disputes (Elinor and Cermak properties), and competing dissipation claims.
Issues Presented
Whether the trial court erred in (1) refusing to restrict Jeffrey’s parenting time (including requiring SoberLink), (2) finding Jeffrey did not cohabitate with a romantic partner, (3) declining to impute income to Jeffrey, (4) valuing Jeffrey’s contribution to the marital estate, and (5) making findings on dissipation.
Holdings
- Parenting time: Affirmed. The court’s refusal to restrict Jeffrey’s parenting time was not against the manifest weight of the evidence—experts and supervisors found no demonstrated current danger and SoberLink recommendations served largely to reassure the parties rather than respond to demonstrated risk.
- Cohabitation: Affirmed. The finding that Jeffrey did not cohabitate was supported by the record (no commingled finances, no shared assets, no holding out as married).
- Income imputation/maintenance: Reversed in part. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to impute income to Jeffrey; the matter is remanded to impute appropriate income (the opinion identifies a 40‑hour/week minimum‑wage baseline as a required minimum) and to recalculate maintenance. Otherwise, the maintenance award’s substance and duration were upheld and the court did not abuse discretion in denying credit for temporary maintenance payments Erin stopped making.
- Valuation/allocation of marital estate: Largely affirmed. The court’s valuation of Jeffrey’s contribution (including funds from his father treated as a gift) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; Erin’s valuation challenges were largely forfeited for lack of cited authority.
- Dissipation: Remanded. The trial court’s written findings were insufficiently specific for appellate review. Although the appellate opinion notes the record shows Jeffrey paid criminal‑defense fees and certain payments (cigar club, insurance) that amount to dissipation, the trial court made no explicit findings or valuations—requiring remand for specific dissipation findings and reallocation if needed.
Key Findings of Fact Relevant to Review
- Experts (GAL, Dr. Kraus) and supervised‑visit witnesses observed no impairment of parenting and recommended SoberLink mainly for reassurance; Jeffrey had engaged in treatment and reported negative SoberLink results.
- Jeffrey reported limited 2023 gross income (~$25,000) from coaching and trading; the trial court found annual incomes of Jeffrey $15,000 and Erin $135,000, but the appellate court concluded the record supported imputing a higher baseline to Jeffrey.
- Proceeds from sales of two LLC properties were deposited, largely withdrawn, and expended; the court credited Jeffrey with an ~CAD $82,880 contribution (treated as a gift from his father) toward one property purchase, and the parties each relied on marital assets post‑separation.
Disposition
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. The case is remanded for (1) imputation of income to Jeffrey and recalculation of maintenance consistent with the opinion, and (2) explicit findings and, if necessary, adjustment of the marital‑estate allocation based on dissipation findings. Other aspects of the dissolution judgment (parenting time, cohabitation finding, valuation rulings not otherwise preserved) remain intact.