In re Marriage of Burns, 2022 IL App (4th) 210732-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Burns, 2022 IL App (4th) 210732-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Dauna Beck Burns; Respondent-Appellee: Gary M. Burns.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly deviated below the statutory maintenance guideline and whether adequate findings supported any deviation.
2. Whether the court erred in refusing to award retroactive maintenance.
3. Proper valuation date for a marital retirement account and other asset-division timing (date of hearing on grounds vs. date of final judgment).

- Holding / outcome
The Fourth District remanded to the circuit court for clarification of its judgment as to the financial issues. The appellate court did not resolve the substantive disputes on the merits but found the judgment ambiguous on maintenance, retroactivity, and asset valuation timing and therefore required clarification.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The panel observed several ambiguities in the record: a dissolution "grounds" ruling was entered on April 29, 2021, and a proposed judgment was entered on October 29, 2021 (not entered nunc pro tunc), but the trial court later proceeded to decide financial issues. The appellate court noted the record did not clearly show whether the court adhered to or deviated from the statutory maintenance guideline, and—if there was a deviation—what statutory factors justified it. The court also found unclear whether retroactive maintenance had been considered and whether the retirement account and other assets were valued as of the proper date (the date for valuation affects division). Additionally, financial affidavits appeared in the record but were not admitted into evidence, further muddling the factual basis for financial determinations. Because the trial court’s written judgment and factual findings failed to clarify these points, the appellate court remanded for clarification rather than reaching the merits.

- Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Seek explicit written findings when the court departs from the statutory maintenance guideline—tie findings to the statutory factors.
- If retroactive maintenance is sought, request specific findings about entitlement and the retroactivity period.
- Stipulate or plead valuation dates for pensions/retirement and other assets, and ask the court to state the valuation date in its order; when a prior “grounds” ruling exists, move for nunc pro tunc entry if intended to be effective earlier.
- Admit financial affidavits/exhibits into evidence or preserve a clear evidentiary record for asset values and loans.
- If judgment language is ambiguous, move for clarification or reconsideration before appeal.
- Note Rule 23 status: this unpublished (nonprecedential) decision underscores the importance of clear findings and precise judgment drafting in dissolution financial orders.