Steigmann

In re Marriage of Stallworth

1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Stallworth, 2025 IL App (4th) 250210-U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Aug. 29, 2025) (Steigmann, J.; DeArmond & Vancil, JJ., concurring). - Petitioner-Appellant: John Fitzgerald Stallworth. Respondent-Appellee: Osvaldina Holanda DeSouza. 2. Key legal issues - Whether the trial court properly found dissipation of a marital vehicle (2023 GMC Sierra) and adjusted the property division to account for it. - Whether the court correctly applied Illinois law governing equitable division of marital assets/debts and maintenance. - Whether the award of additional attorney fees to the wife was proper. - Procedural: impact of appellant’s failure to provide a reporter’s transcript (or agreed statement) on appellate review. 3. Holding/outcome - The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dissolution judgment in all respects, including (a) finding dissipation of the 2023 GMC and adjusting the equalization payment, (b) the property/debt division and lump‑sum maintenance calculation, and (c) awarding an additional $3,000 toward the wife’s $15,735 in attorney fees. 4. Significant legal reasoning - Record limitations: The court repeatedly emphasized that Stallworth failed to provide a trial transcript, bystander’s report, or agreed statement; under settled Illinois law, an appellant bears the burden to provide an adequate record, and absent it, the appellate court will accept the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations. That procedural failure materially constrained review. - Credibility/factual findings: The trial judge found Stallworth not credible based on omissions and inconsistencies (undisclosed accounts, failure to account for loans including a $19,987 flex loan post‑separation, closing of marital accounts, and late disclosure about the vehicle). The appellate court deferred to those findings. - Dissipation: Trial court concluded the 2023 GMC was traded for a 2025 model and shipped overseas without notice or court approval; the sponsor of the transaction’s testimony was found unconvincing. The court treated that conduct as dissipation and included a dissipation adjustment in the equalization payment. - Attorney fees: The court found fees reasonable and awarded additional contribution based on income disparity, language barrier, and overall equitable considerations. 5. Practice implications (concise) - Preserve the record: timely order/report the transcript or prepare an agreed statement for appeal — failure is often dispositive. - Full disclosure: courts scrutinize nondisclosure of accounts/loans and will infer adverse credibility; careful, complete financial affidavits are essential. - Dissipation claims: document timing, transfers, destination, and intent; secure preservation orders or temporary restraints when disposal is suspected. - Fees: quantify hours, rates, and necessity; emphasize income disparity and barriers (e.g., language, immigration status) when seeking contribution. - Pro se litigants face risks; counsel presence affects procedural posture and credibility assessments.