In re Marriage of Bornhofen, 2023 IL App (1st) 221194-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Bornhofen, 2023 IL App (1st) 221194‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Dec. 19, 2023) (Rule 23 order; not precedent except as allowed). Petitioner‑Appellant: Louise Bornhofen. Respondent‑Appellee: Gerald (Gerry) Bornhofen.

2. Key legal issues
- Proper method to value a closely held marital business (iTouch Biometrics, LLC) under the IMDMA (750 ILCS 5/503) and applicable valuation principles (Rev. Rul. 59‑60).
- Trial court’s discretion to credit one expert over another and to exclude or decline supplementation/reopening of proofs after experts’ valuation dates.
- Appropriateness, amount, duration and reviewability of maintenance.
- Whether the trial court abused discretion by not considering certain postjudgment motions.

3. Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s selection of respondent’s expert valuation (Joseph Modica: 100% FMV = $1,166,100 as of Apr. 30, 2021) over petitioner’s expert (Dr. Adarsh Arora: $5,140,000 as of July 30, 2021) was not an abuse of discretion. Trial court’s refusal to reopen proofs or to consider certain postjudgment motions was affirmed. Judgment: Gerald awarded 100% of iTouch and ordered to buy out Louise’s 50% for $583,050 (quarterly $25,000 payments); total marital estate divided roughly equally; maintenance awarded to Louise at $7,000/month with review after five years and requirement that she file a petition to extend.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Deference to trial court credibility findings: the court found Modica’s methodology consistent with Revenue Ruling 59‑60 and the FMV standard of §503, whereas Arora relied on an “investment” approach comparing iTouch to software companies without adequate foundation. The appellate court emphasized that a trial court may reject an expert opinion that is speculative or not grounded in evidence showing the business is of the compared type.
- Valuation principle applied: closely held operating businesses are typically valued using income/revenue approaches consistent with Rev. Rul. 59‑60 unless a clear basis exists for alternative methods. Because iTouch’s software and hardware were intertwined and the record lacked support that software could be separately monetized, the investment/comparables approach was improper.
- Procedural discretion: trial court acted within its discretion in declining to reopen proof after final expert valuation dates; parties must timely present financials and valuation issues.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Expert selection: pick experts who apply valuation methods tied to the actual nature of the business and can marshal record evidence for any departure from Rev. Rul. 59‑60 (e.g., explain marketability, separability of intangibles).
- Foundation: document whether software can be sold separately from hardware; contemporaneous financials and transparent books are critical.
- Litigation timing: raise supplementation/production issues promptly; courts have broad discretion to deny reopening post‑trial.
- Maintenance strategy: be prepared for imputations of income, consideration of non‑marital assets, and courts’ power to set reviewable terms with procedural conditions for extension.
- Persuasive (not binding) value: as a Rule 23 order this opinion is persuasive but not binding precedent except in limited circumstances.