In re Marriage of Calk, 2020 IL App (1st) 182512-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Calk, 2020 IL App (1st) 182512‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 19, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Stephen A. Calk. Respondent‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Donna L. Calk.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether Stephen’s ownership interest in National Bancorp Holdings, Inc. (NBHI) is marital or nonmarital property (tracing and burden of proof).
- Proper valuation date and valuation issues for NBHI (experts’ competing values; marketability discounts).
- Classification of two Charles Schwab accounts and the Truckee, CA vacation property as marital or nonmarital.
- Whether Donna’s dissipation claims (alleging ~ $2.6M dissipated) were time‑barred.
- Calculation errors in the trial court’s decree.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings:
- Affirmed: the trial court did not err in classifying Stephen’s NBHI interest, the Schwab accounts, or the Truckee residence as marital property; the court did not abuse discretion in using a valuation date closer to trial for NBHI.
- Reversed in part: the trial court erred in finding certain of Donna’s dissipation claims time‑barred.
- The parties agreed a portion of the trial court’s monetary calculation was incorrect; the appellate court instructed correction on remand.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Presumption and burden: Because NBHI was formed during the marriage, a marital characterization was presumed; Stephen bore the burden to rebut by clear and convincing evidence through tracing to a nonmarital source. The trial court reasonably rejected Stephen’s tracing attempt (expert testimony was speculative; deposits and withdrawals could not be clearly traced to nonmarital funds).
- Valuation date: Trial court’s selection of a valuation date nearer to trial (Dec. 31, 2016) was within discretion given the evidence of value change; expert disputes and marketability discounts were properly weighed by the court.
- Commingling/title: Schwab accounts and Truckee property were treated as marital where premarital funds were followed by marital deposits/contributions and improvements made during marriage; title alone did not control.
- Dissipation: The appellate court concluded the trial court mistakenly dismissed some dissipation claims as time‑barred, requiring further proceedings to evaluate those claims on the merits.

5. Practice implications
- Tracing requires rigorous, documentary proof; expert opinion must trace funds with specificity to meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard. Preserve and produce contemporaneous bank ledgers, wire records, and corporate books.
- Fight early over valuation date; be prepared to justify valuations at multiple dates and explain marketability discounts.
- Premarital title is vulnerable: improvements and commingling can convert to marital property—document the source of payments and maintain segregated accounts where appropriate.
- File timely, detailed dissipation notices and preserve transactional records; courts may scrutinize timeliness but erroneous time‑bar rulings can be reversed.
- Scrutinize trial calculations and request ministerial corrections before appeal/remand.