In re Marriage of Barclay, 2023 IL App (1st) 210780-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Barclay, 2023 IL App (1st) 210780-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Sept. 29, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Katherine Barclay. Respondent-Appellant: John Barclay.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether several assets (a family trust, a Charles Schwab account, funds held by a third party, a Transamerica life policy, and insurance proceeds from a totaled motorcycle) were marital property subject to division.
- Whether appellant was entitled to reimbursement for assertedly non‑marital (inherited) funds or could rebut transmutation/commingling by clear and convincing evidence.
- Whether appellant dissipated marital assets and whether dissipation notice was timely.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney’s fees.
- Appellate review complications from use of a bystander’s report in lieu of a verbatim transcript.

3) Holding / outcome
- Judgment affirmed as modified. The trial court’s classification of the Trust, Schwab account, funds with Foushi, and Transamerica policy as marital property and denial of reimbursement were affirmed.
- Trial court erred in charging appellant with $10,000 dissipation for purchase of a motorcycle because wife’s notice of dissipation was untimely; modification: wife is entitled to 50% of the insurance proceeds ($8,500 total proceeds resulted in $4,250 to wife, reflected as court’s modification).
- Award of attorney’s fees was upheld.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Presumption: Property acquired during marriage is marital (750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1)); non‑marital status (inheritance, gift, etc.) must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.
- Transmutation/commingling: placing inherited funds into joint accounts gives rise to the presumption those funds became marital; to rebut, the owner must trace funds “from their origin, through the account, and to the ultimate recipient.” The appellant failed to produce documentary proof; his testimony alone was insufficient.
- Dissipation: wife’s claim was untimely under governing practice (notice requirement), so the dissipation finding could not stand as to the motorcycle purchase; because the motorcycle was destroyed and insurance proceeds exist, equitable division must account for proceeds.
- Standard of review: factual findings upheld absent manifest weight error; deference to trial court credibility determinations.
- Procedural note: appellate review hampered by reliance on a bystander’s report; court admonished parties to create fuller reports when transcripts are unavailable.

5) Practice implications for family lawyers
- Preserve documentary proof whenever asserting property is non‑marital (inheritance, gift); do not rely on testimony alone.
- Avoid commingling non‑marital funds with marital accounts if you intend to preserve their character; where commingling occurs, prepare detailed tracing evidence.
- Timely plead and give notice of dissipation claims; seek immediate relief if assets are being spent.
- If an asset is destroyed, pursue insurance proceeds and clarify entitlement in pleadings/judgment.
- When a transcript is unavailable, use the bystander’s report process carefully: serve detailed proposed reports and propose corrections to protect appellate review.