In re Marriage of Burkhart, 2019 IL App (2d) 180475‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Burkhart, No. 2‑18‑0475 (2d Dist. Sept. 11, 2019) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Rachelle D. Burkhart. Respondent‑Appellant: John A. Burkhart III.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court (a) impermissibly “double counted” vested stock (treating it as both marital property and income subject to maintenance), (b) improperly deviated from the §504 maintenance formula without justification, and (c) abused its discretion in capping the amount of respondent’s income subject to maintenance.
- Whether trial court correctly found dissipation and apportioned recovery.

3) Holding / outcome
- Appellate court affirmed. No reversible error in maintenance award, unequal property division (60% to wife / 40% to husband), or dissipation ruling. Trial court’s maintenance structure and cap were within its discretion; small dissipation award (~$7,459.51 to wife) was supported.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Double‑counting: The court found no double counting. The trial court awarded already‑vested shares as marital property; it separately conditioned maintenance on future income (including future vesting of options). The judgment’s language showed the trial court did not count the same units twice.
- Application of §504: Because the parties’ combined gross annual income exceeded $500,000, the statutory guideline calculation under 750 ILCS 5/504(b‑1)(1) did not apply. The trial court therefore properly exercised its broad discretion to set non‑guideline maintenance using the statutory factors; no “deviation” finding under §504(b‑2) was required.
- Cap and discretion: The trial court set a cap ($765,000) reflecting evidence of the highest income during the marriage (and reduced an initial cap reflecting a one‑time payout). Appellate review is deferential; John failed to show an abuse of discretion.
- Dissipation: Trial court rejected most dissipation claims but identified specific expenditures during the marriage breakdown (motorcycle, gear, trip) and ordered an apportioned recovery.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft final judgments to explicitly distinguish property awarded (vested shares) from income streams (future vesting/bonuses) to avoid double‑counting claims.
- If using non‑guideline maintenance (combined income > $500k), still thoroughly articulate consideration of §504 factors on the record; explain methodology for base/bonus splits and any caps.
- When seeking or opposing a cap on income subject to maintenance, develop a clear income history (highest vs average vs recent trends) and the rationale for chosen metric.
- Preserve and document dissipation claims with timeframes and nexus to the marital breakdown; quantify expenditures and demonstrate marital asset depletion.
- Remember Rule 23 limits on citing this decision as precedent.