In re Marriage of Bailey, 2025 IL App (3d) 240282-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bailey, 2025 IL App (3d) 240282-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Adrienne Bailey; Respondent-Appellee: Joseph F. Bailey. Order filed Apr. 1, 2025 (Rule 23 — nonprecedential).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly struck wife’s late “notice of intent to claim dissipation” (procedural fairness/timeliness).
2. Whether funds deposited by husband (proceeds from Florida real-estate sales) were marital or nonmarital (inheritance) and whether the home purchased with those funds was nonmarital.
3. Whether the trial court abused discretion in the property division and in treating attorney-fee payments (marital advance or each party bears own fees).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held the trial court erred in striking Adrienne’s dissipation notice. It affirmed the trial court’s finding that the roughly $90,000 deposit (Florida-sale proceeds) was husband’s nonmarital inheritance and that the Garfield Avenue home purchased with those funds was nonmarital. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Waiver/appealability: Appellant preserved review—appellate court treated the striking order as a procedural step leading to the appealed judgment (citing Burtell).
- Dissipation notice: The court concluded the notice was timely under the controlling statute and that striking it outright because it was filed nine days before trial and listed many transactions was erroneous. (Appellate court applied de novo review to whether the notice complied with the statute.) Although trial courts may police fairness, wholesale striking was improper — issues of fairness should be managed by targeted measures (discovery, continuance, limiting orders), not automatic exclusion.
- Characterization of assets: Trial court’s factual findings that husband received one‑third of each Florida-property sale and deposited $90,905.08 into a Citibank account were supported by settlement checks/statements and credible testimony. Those findings overcame the presumption of marital property by clear and convincing evidence; manifest-weight review did not compel reversal. The home purchased with those inherited funds was therefore nonmarital.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- File dissipation notices within statutory deadlines and with transaction-level detail (date/payee/amount/category). If late but technically timely, oppose blanket strikes; seek continuance or targeted discovery rather than exclusion.
- To establish inheritance/nonmarital character, develop a chain of title and trace deposits (settlement statements, checks, bank records) to show clear and convincing provenance.
- Preserve objections and include dispositive pretrial orders in notices of appeal (or risk procedural arguments).
- Expect trial courts discretion on attorney‑fee allocations — if you want fees treated as marital advances, obtain an express order to that effect.