In re Marriage of Branson, 2023 IL App (4th) 220547-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Branson, No. 4-22-0547, 2023 IL App (4th) 220547-U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., May 16, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Jesse R. Branson. Respondent-Appellant: Rosario M. Jorgenson.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court misclassified various assets (mobile-home/rent-to-own residence, cryptocurrency accounts, camper, joint bank account, vehicles) as marital property rather than nonmarital.
- Whether appellant’s appeal was timely (jurisdictional issue raised by appellee).
- Applicability of Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503) regarding marital/nonmarital property and reimbursement for contributions (commingling/traceability).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s property classifications were not against the manifest weight of the evidence and rejected appellee’s jurisdictional dismissal argument.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Jurisdiction: Appellee argued the notice of appeal was untimely, but the court found Rosario timely filed a Rule 137 motion within 30 days of the post-judgment ruling, which tolled the appeal period; her notice of appeal was then filed within 30 days of denial of that motion (citing Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(1) and Rule 137 timing).
- Substance: Classification disputes governed by 750 ILCS 5/503 — marital property is generally property acquired during the marriage; nonmarital includes pre-marriage property. Reimbursement for contributions from a nonmarital estate requires traceability by clear and convincing evidence and is precluded for untraceable contributions or gifts (750 ILCS 5/503(c)(2)(A)).
- Evidence: Trial evidence showed the contested assets were acquired during the marriage; appellant testified to pre-marital contributions (cryptocurrency, down payment) but produced no documentary tracing. On vehicles, timing was not proved. Given the lack of tracing/records, the court’s marital classifications were reasonable and survived manifest-weight review.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Document and preserve proof of any pre-marital funds or intended reimbursements (bank records, receipts, signed agreements) — especially for intangible/volatile assets like cryptocurrency.
- Avoid commingling or, if commingling occurs, maintain clear traceability to support reimbursement under 503(c)(2)(A).
- For property acquired via rent-to-own or informal arrangements, obtain written agreements clarifying ownership and refund expectations.
- Be mindful of appellate deadlines: timely postjudgment motions (including Rule 137 claims) can toll appeal periods; consider Rule 304(a) where finality is in issue.
- Pro se litigants remain subject to briefing rules; noncompliance can risk dismissal though courts may exercise discretion to reach merits.