In Re Marriage of Romano, 968 N.E.2d 115

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Romano, 968 N.E.2d 115, 360 Ill. Dec. 36 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2012). Petitioner-Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Daniel Romano. Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Cynthia Romano.

2. Key legal issues
- Classification of assets transferred into and out of three irrevocable grantor trusts (the DMR trusts) as marital or nonmarital property.
- Classification of Daniel’s interests in several family business entities (RBBC, Paramount, Central, Mueller, M & D Investments LLC, Power Distributing LLC).
- Whether $6,429,000 of “missing funds” should be treated as marital property.
- Whether Daniel dissipated marital assets or committed a fraud on Cynthia’s marital rights by transfers to/from the trusts.
- Whether the trial court erred in its maintenance/child‑support treatment and in failing to account for predistribution of assets to Cynthia for attorney fees.

3. Holding/outcome (concise)
The appellate court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It upheld many of the trial court’s factual findings and its rejection of Cynthia’s broad fraud/dissipation claims as to the trust transfers, but it vacated and remanded limited aspects of the property‑division/maintenance determinations (including adjustments related to predistribution/attorney fees and calculation issues) for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Burden and deference: appellate review gave substantial deference to the trial court’s factual findings about complex family business transactions and intent; those findings were supported by documentary evidence, expert testimony (estate planning and financial advisors), and the formal structure of the trusts and promissory notes.
- Marital vs. nonmarital analysis: the court focused on objective indicia — timing of transfers, formality of trust documents, consideration received (notes/annuities), independence of the estate plan, and whether the spouse retained beneficial or control rights — to determine whether transfers converted marital assets to nonmarital.
- Dissipation/fraud: to prove dissipation or fraud on marital rights, Cynthia needed to show purposeful depletion of marital assets for a spouse’s nonmarital benefit (or intent to defeat marital claims). The trial court’s finding that transfers were part of a multi‑party estate plan and accompanied by consideration undercut a dissipation/fraud conclusion.
- Remedies and recalculation: where the appellate court found calculation errors or inadequate accounting for predistributions/fees, it remanded for recalculation rather than wholesale reallocation.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers (practical takeaways)
- When attacking trust transfers, litigate intent and substance: obtain contemporaneous estate‑planning documents, promissory notes, contribution agreements, and advisor testimony to show lack of fraudulent intent or continued beneficial interest.
- Trace consideration: transfers accompanied by bona fide consideration (annuities, notes, formal redemption agreements) are harder to recast as marital dissipation.
- Plead early and with specificity: dissipation and fraud claims require focused pleading and proof of intent to defeat marital rights; ask for expedited discovery of trusts, corporate records, and redemption/contribution agreements.
- Preserve computation and offset issues: where predistribution or fee offsets are at stake, obtain detailed accounting findings and request specific findings of value, dates, and setoffs to avoid remand.
- Expect appellate deference on credibility/fact‑heavy enterprise allocations but push for clear record on valuation and transactional form when monetary remedies are critical.