In re Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL App (1st) 190994

1) Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL App (1st) 190994. Petitioner-Appellee: Heather Budorick; Respondent-Appellant: Daniel Budorick. First District, Fifth Division; judgment: affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded.

2) Key legal issues
- Classification of pre-marital and rolled-over retirement benefits (LACERA, L.A. County 457 → Hollister 401(k), HolliShare).
- Characterization and valuation of restricted/nonpublic employer stock (JDS/Hollister).
- Proper valuation date for retirement accounts and whether different valuation dates for spouses were permissible.
- Award of attorney fees (trial court ordered Daniel to pay $50,000).
- Child support gross income calculation and allocation of future college expenses.
- Dissipation claims (IRA withdrawals and other alleged diversions).
- Whether §513 of the IMDMA was unconstitutional as applied.
- Reimbursement claims (utilities, rollovers) and procedural issues (motions to reconsider).

3) Holding / outcome (concise)
The appellate court affirmed many of the trial court’s factual and discretionary findings (including the classification of Heather’s LACERA benefit as nonmarital, the tracing/apportionment of JDS stock between marital and nonmarital portions, denial of maintenance, and rejection of dissipation claims), but it reversed certain aspects of the property division and remanded for further proceedings. Most notably, the court reversed the uneven valuation approach (Heather’s retirement accounts valued at a date near filing while Daniel’s were valued at trial) and remanded for consistent valuation and recalculation of the division. The court also required additional or clearer findings on some monetary adjustments (including aspects of the attorney-fee award) before the judgment could be final.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Deference: appellate review afforded deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility determinations; many rulings were upheld as not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Tracing: characterization of retirement interests and restricted stock hinged on tracing (gift vs. marital purchases/contributions); where the record supported tracing, the classification was upheld.
- Valuation date: while trial courts have discretion to select valuation dates, the choice must be applied consistently and supported by reasoned findings; using different valuation dates for similarly situated marital assets without adequate explanation was reversible error because it affects the equitable division.
- Fees/deterrence: the record of the husband’s extensive dilatory litigation factored into fee considerations, but the appellate court required clearer linkage and findings to sustain the specific fee award.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Meticulous tracing and documentary proof are critical when arguing nonmarital source (gifts, pre-marital contributions, rollovers).
- If asking the court to use an alternative valuation date, obtain and articulate specific, asset-by-asset reasons; apply the same approach to both parties or justify disparities on the record.
- Preserve detailed findings when seeking attorney fees (show need, ability to pay, and connection between misconduct/delay and fees).
- Document dissipation with dates, amounts, and a nexus to marital funds; absence of such links risks affirmance of the trial court’s no-dissipation finding.
- Expect appellate deference on credibility and factual findings, but not on inconsistent legal applications (e.g., valuation methodology).