In Re Marriage of Daebel, 935 N.E.2d 1131

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Daebel, 935 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010).
- Bonnie Daebel (petitioner/appellee) v. William Daebel (respondent/appellant).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in handling discovery violations and sanctions (failure to appear for deposition; failure to respond to requests to admit).
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to find dissipation of marital assets.
- Whether the court improperly excluded an evidence deposition (treating it as hearsay/lacking foundation).
- Whether the trial court erred in denying maintenance to respondent.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated the dissolution judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court found reversible error in the trial court’s handling of discovery sanctions, admission of evidence, and related factual determinations (including dissipation and maintenance).

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- The trial court repeatedly delayed ruling on respondent’s sanctions motion though the motion sought preclusion and default-type relief for petitioner’s repeated discovery failures and failure to appear for deposition. The court then proceeded to trial and effectively prevented respondent from presenting evidence on dissipation and other claims. The appellate court concluded this procedure prejudiced respondent and constituted an abuse of discretion.
- Petitioner failed to timely respond to requests to admit; the appellate decision emphasizes that unresponded requests can bind a party and that the trial court should have addressed those procedural consequences rather than recharacterize the requests as “statements of law.”
- The trial court excluded an evidence deposition on an asserted lack of foundation and hearsay grounds despite that an evidence deposition may be admissible when proper foundation is laid (and the respondent had opportunity to lay such a foundation). The appellate court found the exclusion improper under the circumstances and prejudicial.
- Because evidentiary rulings and sanction decisions affected the record on dissipation and maintenance, the appellate court concluded the trial court could not reliably make those substantive determinations and therefore remanded.

5. Practice implications (practical takeaways for counsel)
- Treat requests to admit with urgency: failure to timely respond can result in admissions that are difficult to overcome.
- If an opponent repeatedly ignores depositions and discovery orders, litigate sanctions promptly and insist on a pretrial ruling (or move for relief before proceeding to a contested trial). Preserve the record of prejudice.
- When offering an evidence deposition, be prepared to lay foundation at trial (and be ready to argue admissibility under applicable rules).
- On dissipation claims, develop documentary trace evidence and preserve discovery responses; seek interim relief (injunctions, surcharge hearings, appointment of receiver) when assets are at risk.
- If a trial judge delays ruling that will affect presentation of evidence, consider requesting continuance or interlocutory remedies to avoid irreversible prejudice.