In re Marriage of Bailey

Full Case Summary

Case Overview

Case Name: In re Marriage of Adrienne Bailey

Order Filed: April 1, 2025

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District

Appeal No: 3-24-0282

Circuit No: 21-D-2133, Du Page County

Presiding Judge: Richard D. Felice

Judgment Delivered By: Justice Peterson

Concurrence: Presiding Justice Brennan, Justice Anderson

Case Background

Adrienne and Joseph married on July 10, 2015, and had no children. Adrienne filed for dissolution on November 17, 2021, with a trial set for April 13, 2023. The trial lasted from April to September 2023. Joseph objected to Adrienne’s notice of intent to claim dissipation due to its last-minute submission and volume. Adrienne filed this notice on April 4, 2023, alleging over 200 transactions related to dissipation.

Key Findings

• Dissipation Claim: The court erred by striking Adrienne's dissipation claim. It was deemed timely filed, despite the trial court's concerns about its fairness.
• Property Classification: The court upheld the classification of the Garfield home as Joseph’s nonmarital property due to credible evidence, including inheritance claims.

Testimony and Evidence

During the trial, Joseph provided details about the sale of two inherited properties in Florida, with proceeds deposited into a Citibank account. He purchased the Garfield home for approximately $85,000 using nonmarital funds from this account. Joseph acknowledged the use of marital funds for attorney fees, asserting that they should not offset his estate share. The court determined that he successfully rebutted the marital property presumption regarding the Garfield property.

Court's Conclusion and Judgment Findings

The court ruled that Joseph’s financial actions did not constitute dissipation and affirmed that the classification of certain properties was reasonable based on the evidence presented. Adrienne was granted maintenance and was responsible for her own attorney fees.

Marital Asset Division and Appeal

The court divided the marital assets evenly and denied Adrienne's motion to reconsider concerning maintenance calculation and distribution discrepancies. Adrienne's appeal includes challenges to the court's decision on her dissipation claim, which she argues lacked rightful consideration.

Final Rulings

The appellate court found the trial court had erred by striking the notice of dissipation, reinstating it for further proceedings. Conversely, the classification of the Garfield property as nonmarital remained upheld. The circuit court's judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for additional examination of the dissipation claims.