In re Marriage of Cina
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 2/20/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
```html
<h3>Case Summary: In re Marriage of Alma Cina</h3>
<strong>Case Number:</strong> 2025 IL App (3d) 230121-U
<strong>Filing Date:</strong> February 20, 2025
<strong>Court:</strong> Appellate...
Full Case Summary
```html
Case Summary: In re Marriage of Alma Cina
Case Number: 2025 IL App (3d) 230121-U Filing Date: February 20, 2025 Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. McJoynt Appeal Reference: Appeal No. 3-23-0121, Circuit No. 21-D-702Background
Alma and Ilir Cina were married in 1996 after initially meeting when Alma was a minor. The couple had three children from 1998 to 2005. Alma left their family home in March 2021 and filed for divorce, asserting claims regarding ownership of their home based on Ilir's promises and various contributions she had made to the household.Trial Court Rulings and Findings
The trial court upheld Alma’s claims, granting her a one-fourth interest in the family home via promissory estoppel, allowing her to proceed with claims including marital property classification and unjust enrichment (dismissed). Furthermore, Ilir was ordered to compensate her for the missing jewelry valued at $5,700 and $40,000 cash missing from safes.Promissory Estoppel
The appellate court acknowledged the findings of the trial court, which established that Ilir made unambiguous promises about the home ownership in exchange for marriage, which Alma relied upon. The court ruled that Alma met the necessary elements for a promissory estoppel claim and concluded her injury stemmed from this reliance.Damages and Ownership Interests
Alma's total contributions towards the home were estimated at $364,185.75. However, the court determined awarding this amount was inequitable and instead granted her a one-fourth ownership interest, alongside a monetary order for Ilir to pay her $106,250 or sell the property within 45 days.Evidence and Testimony
The trial included testimony from various parties regarding the family's financial contributions and the promises made concerning the home. Ilir denied any obligations and asserted discrepancies regarding missing cash and jewelry, but the court gave considerable weight to Alma's evidence and testimony, supporting claims of responsibility for the missing property.Court's Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, including the findings of Ilir's responsibility for the missing cash and jewelry, and dismissed claims concerning the statute of frauds as it wasn't properly raised. The court's ruling reflects a commitment to achieving justice in light of the presented evidence and testimony. ```Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Cina? Ask our AI assistant below.