In re Marriage of Barlow, 2021 IL App (3d) 190712‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Barlow, 2021 IL App (3d) 190712‑U (Order filed Feb. 17, 2021) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Chance W. Barlow. Respondent‑Appellee: Amy R. Barlow.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding maintenance to the wife.
- Proper method for calculating a self‑employed spouse’s income (including unreported cash and ordinary business expenses).
- Whether the trial court properly considered a motion to reconsider and whether new evidence attached thereto could be considered.
- Whether the court appropriately used statutory maintenance guidelines and an individualized tax adjustment when computing net income.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. It held the trial court did not err in (1) awarding maintenance; (2) calculating Amy’s income (net $32,517); (3) granting and resolving the motion to reconsider; (4) applying the statutory guideline framework to set amount/duration; and (5) using an individualized tax adjustment for a self‑employed spouse. Final maintenance: $899.58/month for 5 years.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- The trial court’s credibility determinations and fact findings—especially weighing Amy’s testimony about consistent ~$7,000/year in unreported cash and discrediting the petitioner’s bookkeeping expert as speculative—were within its discretion and supported by the record.
- The court relied on tax returns, bank deposits, the financial affidavit, and witness testimony to determine gross income ($55,530) and then deduct ordinary/necessary business expenses ($23,012.40) to reach net self‑employment income ($32,517).
- The court declined to admit new evidence attached to the motion to reconsider but reconsidered earlier findings based on the existing record and statutory maintenance factors.
- Because Amy was self‑employed, the court used her individualized tax calculation rather than a standardized tax offset when deriving net income for maintenance guideline purposes. Although husband had child‑support obligations that made the guidelines inapplicable as a strict rule, the court considered what guideline results would have been.

5) Practice implications
- Trial courts are given broad discretion in imputing income to self‑employed parties; credibility and source‑document reliability are crucial.
- Expert/bookkeeper analyses that fail to identify deposit sources or rely on speculation are vulnerable. Produce bank statements, ledgers, and corroborating documents when asserting or contesting unreported cash.
- New evidence should generally be presented at trial; attaching it to a motion to reconsider may be excluded.
- For self‑employed spouses, request individualized tax adjustments rather than default standardized figures when computing net income for maintenance.
- Even where statutory guidelines do not strictly apply (e.g., prior child‑support obligations), courts may consult them as a benchmark.