In re Marriage of Brown, 2022 IL App (4th) 210150-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Brown, No. 4‑21‑0150, 2022 IL App (4th) 210150‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 9, 2022).
- Petitioner‑Appellee / Cross‑Appellant: Robert D. Brown. Respondent‑Appellant / Cross‑Appellee: Amanda V. Brown.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion to disqualify petitioner’s counsel for an alleged former‑client/prospective‑client conflict.
- Whether the court abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s motion in limine to exclude respondent’s late‑disclosed valuation expert under Ill. S. Ct. R. 213.
- Whether the court erred in accepting the valuation of the marital business.
- Whether the court erred in denying respondent maintenance.

3. Holding / outcome
- The Fourth District affirmed. The appellate court held the circuit court did not err in (1) denying disqualification, (2) denying the motion in limine and allowing respondent’s expert to testify (after a Rule 213 disclosure cure), (3) accepting the business valuation adopted at trial, and (4) denying respondent maintenance.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standards of review: the court applied abuse‑of‑discretion review to disqualification, evidentiary/exclusionary rulings and valuation/maintenance determinations.
- Disqualification: after an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the motion; the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s fact‑findings (movant bears the burden to show a disqualifying former‑client relationship or substantial relationship and lack of informed consent/improper screening).
- Expert/Rule 213: trial court found a Rule 213(f) noncompliance but fashioned a remedial sanction — an opportunity (14 days) to disclose opinions and supporting material — rather than exclusion. The appellate court affirmed, noting the cure and COVID‑related scheduling context gave adequate time for the opponent to prepare, and exclusion is not mandatory when a lesser remedy avoids prejudice.
- Valuation: competing methodologies were presented. Petitioner’s expert used an asset‑based approach (valuing equipment and excluding alleged shareholder loan), while respondent’s expert used income and market approaches (with a blended weighting). The court adopted a valuation consistent with the trial testimony and expert analyses; the appellate court declined to disturb the trial court’s credibility and methodological choices.
- Maintenance: court denied maintenance; the appellate court found no abuse of discretion in that award decision.

5. Practice implications
- Disqualification motions require proof of a disqualifying relationship; courts give deference to trial findings—document client histories and consents, and implement ethical screens promptly.
- Rule 213 violations can be cured; motion in limine relief is discretionary. Seek exclusion only where prejudice cannot be cured; be prepared to identify specific prejudice and propose tailored remedies.
- Business valuation in family law: choose and fully justify methodologies appropriate to the type of practice (service firms often require income/market approaches and analysis of goodwill/noncompete issues rather than a pure asset approach).
- Appellate review is deferential on credibility, valuation, discovery‑remedy, and maintenance determinations—preserve objections and the record at trial.