Hettel

In re Marriage of Beltran

- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Beltran, 2025 IL App (3d) 240064-U (Feb. 25, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Jacob Beltran. Respondent‑Appellee: Caitlin Beltran. (3‑day bench trial; judgment dissolving marriage.) - Key legal issues 1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in distributing the marital estate (award of the marital residence to wife). 2. Whether the trial court’s finding of dissipation by husband was supported and whether exact reimbursement was required. 3. Whether the court properly imputed income to husband for child support and maintenance calculations. - Holding/outcome Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The court found husband dissipated $150,082 of the marital estate (court relied on evidence of substantial third‑party spending and transfers) and, although it did not order a dollar‑for‑dollar reimbursement, it permissibly awarded the marital residence to wife to address dissipation. The court also properly imputed $106,000 income to husband for maintenance and support purposes. Justice Hettel dissented. - Significant legal reasoning (summary) - Standard of review: distribution and dissipation remedies reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings for manifest weight. - Dissipation: trial court credited evidence that husband received significant benefits from a third party (large BMO deposits, large AmEx "Black" card charges ~$125,800, additional AmEx Blue Cash charges ~$26,458, gifts including motorcycles and vehicles, and other transfers). Husband denied ownership/use and invoked the Fifth in deposition; court found the circumstantial and documentary evidence sufficient to prove dissipation during the period of marital breakdown. - Remedy: Section 503 of the IMDMA allows court to account for dissipation in equitable distribution; relief need not be exact reimbursement — awarding the house to offset dissipated assets was within trial court discretion. - Imputation: court imputed $106,000 based on husband’s prior police earnings and demonstrated capacity/benefits; use of imputed income for maintenance/child support was appropriate given evidence of income sources and lifestyle. - Practice implications (concise) - For petitioners claiming dissipation: timely serve section 503 notice, subpoena third‑party financials (bank, card issuer), trace gifts/transfers, and use contemporaneous texts/commitment letters to show third‑party support. Invocation of the Fifth can undermine credibility. - For respondents defending dissipation claims: attack causal link to marital estate, challenge identification/ownership of charged accounts, and press for precise tracing; but be prepared that courts may award non‑monetary remedies (e.g., house) instead of exact reimbursement. - For support disputes: document prior earnings and capacity to work; court will impute income where actual income is unreliable or lifestyle evidences greater resources.