In re Marriage of Bonanno Georgiades, 2021 IL App (2d) 200677
Case Analysis
1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bonanno Georgiades, No. 2-20-0677 (2d Dist. Ill. June 25, 2021).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Josephine Bonanno Georgiades.
- Respondent-Appellant: Andreas Georgiades.
- Appeal from McHenry County (Judge Mark R. Facchini). Judgment affirmed.
2) Key legal issues
- Whether a spouse who intentionally damaged the other spouse’s nonmarital vehicle may be ordered to pay the full cost of repairs rather than only the vehicle’s fair market value.
- Whether the damaged-owner had a duty to mitigate damages.
- Whether insufficient evidence of current fair market value required reduction of damages.
3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. Trial court’s award of $23,830.96 (repair estimate) to Josephine was upheld. Andreas’s request to limit liability to an asserted FMV of $11,500 was rejected.
4) Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court applied tort principles: when damage results from an intentional tort, damages aim to restore the injured party to the pre-tort condition (Myers v. Arnold). Thus the cost to repair is an appropriate measure where the tortfeasor intentionally caused harm.
- Cases cited by Andreas that measure damages by FMV were distinguishable because they did not involve intentional torts and depended on admissible evidence of FMV.
- Andreas offered no competent evidence (e.g., expert appraisal or market data) to establish the Corvette’s FMV; only his lay testimony, which the trial court found not credible. Credibility findings and damage determinations are factual and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The court noted the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act’s bar on considering “marital misconduct” in property division did not preclude awarding damages for a tort against a spouse’s nonmarital property.
5) Practice implications (brief)
- If seeking to limit tort damages to FMV, present admissible, credible valuation evidence (appraisals, market data, expert testimony).
- When defending damage claims based on intentional acts, litigate credibility but recognize appellate deference to trial findings on credibility and damages.
- Counsel should distinguish marital-property rules from tort remedies for nonmarital assets; an intentional tort by a spouse can justify full repair-cost awards and may negate a duty-to-mitigate argument.
- Preserve record on valuation and mitigation to enable meaningful appellate review.
In re Marriage of Bonanno Georgiades, 2021 IL App (2d) 200677
1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Bonanno Georgiades, No. 2-20-0677 (2d Dist. Ill. June 25, 2021).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Josephine Bonanno Georgiades.
- Respondent-Appellant: Andreas Georgiades.
- Appeal from McHenry County (Judge Mark R. Facchini). Judgment affirmed.
2) Key legal issues
- Whether a spouse who intentionally damaged the other spouse’s nonmarital vehicle may be ordered to pay the full cost of repairs rather than only the vehicle’s fair market value.
- Whether the damaged-owner had a duty to mitigate damages.
- Whether insufficient evidence of current fair market value required reduction of damages.
3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. Trial court’s award of $23,830.96 (repair estimate) to Josephine was upheld. Andreas’s request to limit liability to an asserted FMV of $11,500 was rejected.
4) Significant legal reasoning
- The appellate court applied tort principles: when damage results from an intentional tort, damages aim to restore the injured party to the pre-tort condition (Myers v. Arnold). Thus the cost to repair is an appropriate measure where the tortfeasor intentionally caused harm.
- Cases cited by Andreas that measure damages by FMV were distinguishable because they did not involve intentional torts and depended on admissible evidence of FMV.
- Andreas offered no competent evidence (e.g., expert appraisal or market data) to establish the Corvette’s FMV; only his lay testimony, which the trial court found not credible. Credibility findings and damage determinations are factual and reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The court noted the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act’s bar on considering “marital misconduct” in property division did not preclude awarding damages for a tort against a spouse’s nonmarital property.
5) Practice implications (brief)
- If seeking to limit tort damages to FMV, present admissible, credible valuation evidence (appraisals, market data, expert testimony).
- When defending damage claims based on intentional acts, litigate credibility but recognize appellate deference to trial findings on credibility and damages.
- Counsel should distinguish marital-property rules from tort remedies for nonmarital assets; an intentional tort by a spouse can justify full repair-cost awards and may negate a duty-to-mitigate argument.
- Preserve record on valuation and mitigation to enable meaningful appellate review.
Disclaimer: This case summary is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this content. Always consult with a licensed attorney for specific legal questions.
Facing a Similar Legal Issue?
Appellate decisions shape family law strategy. Ensure your approach aligns with the latest precedents.
Schedule a Strategy SessionLegal Assistant
Ask specific questions about this case's holding.
Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.