In re Marriage of Billington, 2022 IL App (2d) 210370-U

In re Marriage of Billington, 2022 IL App (2d) 210370‑U (Nov. 23, 2022) (Rule 23(b) — non‑precedential)

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Monica I. Billington (petitioner‑appellee & cross‑appellant) and James E. Billington (respondent‑appellant & cross‑appellee), No. 2‑21‑0370 (2d Dist. Nov. 23, 2022).

2. Key legal issues
- Proper computation of maintenance under the IMDMA (whether using gross income and whether an income cap was required).
- Whether the trial court’s allocation of assets/debts departed from the parties’ agreement or was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether dissipation was proved.
- Whether labeling the maintenance award as “reviewable and modifiable” (vs. indefinite) was proper.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded.
- Appellate court held: (a) trial court did not err in basing the maintenance calculation on respondent’s gross income over a base salary (no required income cap); (b) allocation of assets/debts was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (c) dissipation claim was correctly denied; (d) but the trial court abused its discretion by classifying the maintenance award as “reviewable and modifiable.” That classification was vacated and sent back for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Maintenance calculation: The court accepted use of gross income above a base salary (here, base salary ≈ $257,800) and application of a percentage (27.5%) to income above that base, noting the parties had discussed and essentially agreed on the formula and the trial court’s approach conformed to the IMDMA framework and practical accounting (including end‑of‑year “true‑ups” and document exchange).
- No cap required: The appellate court rejected the argument that the IMDMA required an income cap for applying a percentage; a cap was unnecessary where the record supports the method used.
- Dissipation and asset allocation: The record showed withdrawals and transfers (including from 529 accounts) were traced into joint accounts and used for family/educational expenses; petitioner could not identify expenditures that were non‑family dissipation. Given the evidence, the trial court’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight.
- Modifiability: The court found the trial court’s language (reviewable/modifiable) inconsistent with required findings and the parties’ expectations, warranting vacatur on that specific point.

5. Practice implications
- Carefully memorialize maintenance formulas (gross vs. net, base salary, percentage, caps, true‑up mechanics, document exchange) on the record to reduce appellate risk.
- If arguing dissipation, provide clear tracing and itemization showing non‑marital/misappropriated expenditures — mere withdrawal dates are insufficient.
- When requesting indefinite or non‑modifiable maintenance, obtain explicit findings and wording; courts scrutinize labels (reviewable/modifiable vs. indefinite) and require clear findings to support modification or its denial.
- Maintain detailed business and bank records when entrepreneurial income or lump‑sum sales affect maintenance calculations.