In re Marriage of Altman, 2019 IL App (1st) 180649-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Altman, No. 1-18-0649, 2019 IL App (1st) 180649-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Aug. 27, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Heather Altman. Respondent-Appellant: Jeffrey Block.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding maintenance and child support (amounts and retroactivity).
- Whether parenting time should be denied/suspended and the plenary order of protection extended.
- Allocation of responsibility for a deficiency following foreclosure.
- Finding of dissipation of marital assets.
- Classification of Altman’s retirement account as nonmarital despite a prenuptial agreement.
- Whether the trial court properly considered an interim attorney-fee award and also awarded additional fees despite a prenup provision limiting fee recovery.
- Whether the court abused its discretion in striking pleadings, barring testimony, and entering adverse rulings after respondent’s discovery noncompliance and nonappearance.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects. Maintenance ($3,680/mo) and child support ($2,218/mo, retroactive) were upheld; parenting time was denied and the plenary protection order was extended indefinitely; the foreclosure deficiency was allocated to Block; the court’s dissipation finding and the classification of Altman’s retirement as nonmarital were affirmed; the trial court’s attorney-fee rulings and procedural sanctions were upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- The court applied abuse-of-discretion/manifest-weight standards. The record supported the trial court’s credibility findings — it found Block not credible, fraudulent about income, in contempt for nonpayment, and noncompliant with discovery. Block’s repeated failure to appear, produce discovery, and comply with court orders justified striking pleadings, barring testimony, and drawing adverse inferences. The trial court permissibly attributed the foreclosure deficiency and dissipation (documented withdrawals) to Block’s actions and found them to harm the marital estate. The prenuptial agreement’s characterization of Altman’s retirement as separate property controlled and was correctly enforced. The court also recognized that misconduct and court-ordered sanctions can justify fee awards despite contractual fee limitations.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers
- Noncompliance with discovery and court orders can lead to striking pleadings, barring testimony, contempt, and affirmance of adverse substantive rulings on appeal.
- Courts will credit trial judges’ credibility determinations and may attribute foreclosure losses/dissipations to the spouse whose conduct precipitated them.
- Prenuptial provisions will be enforced as written, but misconduct (fraud, discovery abuse) can justify fee awards or other equitable relief contrary to contractual limits.
- Preserve the record on discovery failures, contempts, and financial transactions; use Rule 237 notices, motions to compel, and motions for sanctions to create a strong appellate record.