In re Marriage of Bengoa, 2019 IL App (2d) 190119-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bengoa, 2019 IL App (2d) 190119‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Oct. 22, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner/Appellant: Carlos Bengoa. Respondent/Cross‑Appellant: Vickie Kuhl.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance in gross of $720,000 (vs. periodic maintenance or no maintenance).
2) Whether the court erred by failing to consider tax consequences of a lump‑sum award.
3) Whether the trial court’s 60% (husband) / 40% (wife) division of the $10.48M marital estate was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It upheld the $720,000 maintenance‑in‑gross award and the 60/40 division of the marital estate.

- Significant legal reasoning
• Standard of review: maintenance and its terms reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings reviewed for manifest weight.
• Section 504 factors: the court appropriately considered statutory factors (income/property, needs, realistic present and future earning capacity, duration of marriage, contributions, health, etc.). The wife had long‑standing mental health limitations, limited present/future earning capacity, and had received $1.33M in temporary maintenance over 12 years. The husband was primarily responsible for building the business and the couple’s substantial wealth.
• Form of maintenance: the trial court announced it would reduce monthly maintenance to $6,000 but, given concerns about the husband’s age and risk of nonpayment over time, elected a lump‑sum payment equivalent to the proposed periodic stream. The appellate court found this a reasonable exercise of discretion.
• Tax consequences: the husband argued the court should have considered deductibility/tax effects. The court noted the IRS, not the trial court, governs tax treatment; the appellate court did not find reversible error in the trial court’s decision not to base its ruling on speculative tax consequences.
• Property division: the 60/40 split was supported by evidence of the husband’s predominating financial role and the wife’s limited earning capacity and contributions; findings were not against the manifest weight.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
• Trial courts may lawfully order maintenance in gross when statutory factors and payment risk justify it; a lump‑sum can be chosen to avoid enforcement/risk of future nonpayment.
• Parties should address tax consequences expressly in pleadings/settlement negotiations (and preserve objections via post‑judgment motions); courts are not required to predict IRS treatment.
• Temporary maintenance history and health/earning capacity evidence materially affect both maintenance and property division.
• Preserve issues (e.g., via motion to reconsider) — withdrawal of such motions can determine appeal timing and finality.