In re Marriage of Carbone, 2023 IL App (4th) 220983

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Carbone, 2023 IL App (4th) 220983 (Aug. 29, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellee: Susan M. Carbone. Respondent‑Appellant: Robert T. Carbone. Appeal from Tazewell County; judgment affirmed.

- Key legal issues
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fixed‑term spousal maintenance where the parties had an agreed property division and the payee spouse had substantial post‑division retirement and cash distributions; appropriate amount/duration and inclusion of bonus income in maintenance.

- Holding/outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The trial court’s award of maintenance—$2,696.80 monthly for 13 years, 10 months, plus 21% of Robert’s annual bonuses (capped at $125,262) and a one‑time $23,682 bonus payment—was not an abuse of discretion.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied the statutory maintenance factors in 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (income, needs, earning capacity, standard of living, duration of marriage, etc.). Appellate review is for abuse of discretion; factual findings are reversed only if against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court found (1) a significant disparity in earning capacity—Robert earning ≈$261K plus large bonuses versus Susan ≈$86–89K plus modest bonuses; (2) demonstrated monthly shortfall and reasonable needs as testified; and (3) the parties’ “frugal” lifestyle nonetheless produced accumulated savings and equity that formed part of the marital standard of living. The court properly considered liquidity concerns (Susan’s spending down of savings and fear of job loss), asset division, and the role of bonuses. It was within the court’s discretion to structure maintenance to include a percentage of future bonuses and to allocate the post‑valuation bonus as maintenance.

- Practice implications
- Maintenance awards survive favorable property divisions where payor’s superior earning capacity and recipient’s demonstrated needs/deficits justify approximation of marital standard of living.
- Present concrete evidence on monthly needs, liquidity, and job security; courts consider both assets and cashflow. Document any post‑separation expenditure of savings.
- Bonuses are legitimately includable in maintenance formulas; courts may award a percentage of future bonuses and apportion post‑valuation bonuses.
- Reversal is difficult: appellate courts defer to trial courts’ assessment of credibility, needs, and standard of living. Litigators should focus on developing the statutory factor record and challenging factual findings only where clearly unsupported.