In re Marriage of Blair, 2019 IL App (5th) 180052-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Blair, No. 5-18-0052, 2019 IL App (5th) 180052-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 19, 2019) (Rule 23 order; unpublished/non‑precedential). Petitioner-Appellant: Mary Blair. Respondent-Appellee: Richard Blair.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether funds on deposit in the husband’s business bank accounts at separation were marital or nonmarital property.
2) Whether a certificate of deposit (CD) the wife purchased during the marriage with joint account funds was marital or nonmarital.
3) Whether the marital estate was entitled to reimbursement for marital contributions applied toward the husband’s premarital debt on a lake house he claimed as his separate property.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: reversed the trial court’s classification of the disputed business account funds as the husband’s nonmarital property (i.e., concluded they were marital); affirmed the trial court’s classification of the CD as marital property; and affirmed the trial court’s denial of reimbursement to the marital estate for contributions toward the husband’s premarital lake‑house debt. Case is nonprecedential under Rule 23.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Business account funds: The court found the evidence did not support treating the funds as the husband’s separate property. The deposits largely derived from income earned during the marriage (the husband’s sole‑proprietor business and occasional cash sales), the accounts were used in the parties’ household finances, and the husband failed to trace or segregate the funds as separate property. Where income is earned by a spouse during the marriage through personal effort and is commingled with marital resources, it is properly characterized as marital absent clear tracing to a separate source.
- CD purchased by wife: The CD was purchased with money taken from the parties’ joint savings; therefore it was marital property and properly included in the marital estate.
- Reimbursement claim for lake house debt: The appellate court affirmed denial of reimbursement because the record did not compel an award—there was insufficient proof that the wife’s payments should require reimbursement from the husband’s separate lake‑house asset (the requisite showing that marital funds augmented the separate asset or otherwise created an equitable basis for reimbursement was lacking).

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Trace early and document sources: spouses seeking separate‑property characterization must contemporaneously document origin and maintain segregation; commingling and use in household finances weaken separate‑property claims.
- Preserve bank and business records in discovery (deposits, customer tickets, subcontractor arrangements, flow of funds) to support or rebut tracing claims.
- When asserting reimbursement rights (or defending them), develop specific evidence tying marital payments to reduction in principal or measurable enhancement of the separate asset and frame claims under statutory/equitable reimbursement doctrines.
- Note procedural posture: unpublished Rule 23 decisions have limited citation value; still useful persuasive guidance on tracing, commingling, and reimbursement proof.