In re Marriage of Almodovar, 2023 IL App (2d) 220154-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Almodovar, 2023 IL App (2d) 220154‑U (2d Dist. Nov. 13, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Genuel (Mark) Almodovar, Jr.; Respondent/Appellant: Janet Almodovar. Divorce of long‑married couple who co‑owned M&J Machinery (50/50).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) dividing the marital estate equally vs. awarding Janet a greater share; (b) denying indefinite maintenance and instead reserving maintenance; and (c) denying Janet’s petition for contribution toward attorney fees.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded.
- Trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding an equal division of marital assets (50/50).
- Trial court did not abuse its discretion by reserving maintenance.
- Trial court abused its discretion in denying Janet’s petition for contribution for attorney fees because the court erroneously stated she had not filed such a petition; that denial was vacated and remanded for further proceedings on fees.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Equitable division: The appellate court applied the deferential abuse‑of‑discretion standard. The trial court considered the parties’ contributions to the marriage and business, income evidence (each earned ≈ $200,000 in 2019), Janet’s homemaking and longstanding operational role at M&J, and Mark’s later withdrawal and misconduct. The court’s conclusion that a 50/50 split was equitable was supported by the record and thus upheld.
- Maintenance: The trial court expressly reserved maintenance pending resolution of whether either party purchased the business; the appellate court found reservation within the court’s discretion given uncertainty about post‑dissolution financial positions.
- Attorney fees: The trial court denied Janet’s fee petition based on an incorrect factual premise that she had not filed for contribution. Because the denial rested on that erroneous factual statement rather than an assessment of statutory factors or the merits, the appellate court found an abuse of discretion and remanded for consideration of the fee petition on its merits.

5) Practice implications for family attorneys
- Preserve and make explicit filings: ensure fee petitions are clearly filed, noticed, and reflected on the record; a trial court’s factual misstatement about filings can be reversible.
- Business cases: document both tangible (payroll, transfers, PPP use) and intangible (operational/managerial) contributions to a marital business when seeking a disproportionate division.
- Relief sequencing: where business ownership and buyout/receivership issues remain, expect courts to reserve maintenance and defer some financial determinations until the business disposition is resolved.
- Standard of review: appellate courts give broad deference to trial courts on equitable distribution and maintenance; reversible error more likely when the trial court’s disposition rests on demonstrably incorrect facts or procedural defects.