In re Marriage of Daily, 2021 IL App (5th) 160060-U

In re Marriage of Daily, 2021 IL App (5th) 160060‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Daily, No. 5‑16‑0060, 2021 IL App (5th) 160060‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Aug. 17, 2021) (non‑precedential under Rule 23). Petitioner‑Appellee: Patty Daily; Respondent‑Appellant: Michael Daily.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in considering a dissipation claim where petitioner did not give statutory notice under 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2).
- Whether the court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s post‑trial requests to deem facts admitted (Ill. S. Ct. R. 216).
- Whether the trial court’s finding of dissipation was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the court erred in assigning the foreclosure deficiency on the marital home and in dividing Kentucky real property.
- Whether the court should have awarded respondent attorney’s fees for discovery delay.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held: (1) the notice requirement of 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) did not apply because the dissolution petition predated the 2013 statutory amendment; (2) the trial court properly denied respondent’s improper Rule 216 motion; (3) the finding of dissipation (primarily of EMIP settlement funds) and assignment of the foreclosure deficiency to respondent were not against the manifest weight of the evidence; (4) the property division (lakefront lot to petitioner, remaining Kentucky lots to respondent) and denial of fee awards were proper.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statute timing: The dissipation‑notice provision (added by PA 97‑0941, eff. Jan. 1, 2013) applies only to petitions filed on or after that date; Patty’s 2009 petition therefore required no formal notice.
- Rule 216 limits: A request to admit must seek the admission of specific facts or documents; respondent’s filing was argumentative and procedurally defective, so denial was within the court’s broad discovery discretion.
- Dissipation law: Dissipation is use of marital assets for a spouse’s sole benefit during marital breakdown; once a prima facie showing is made (loss to marital estate), burden shifts to the charged spouse to give clear, specific accounting. Credibility and factual determinations are for the trial court and overturned only if against the manifest weight of the evidence. Trial court credibility findings—that EMIP settlement funds were spent on stock speculation, draws to self, and living expenses rather than preserving marital estate—were supported by records and testimony.

5) Practice implications
- Check petition filing dates before relying on statutory procedural changes (e.g., notice requirements under 503(d)(2)).
- Use Rule 216 properly: requests must seek admissions of discrete facts or documents, not legal argument; courts have wide latitude to deny defective or untimely requests.
- In dissipation claims, develop a clear prima facie showing (paper trail of transfers/spending) and be prepared to meet the shifted burden with contemporaneous, specific accounting and credible explanations.
- Be prepared that trial courts will assign foreclosure deficiencies to the dissipating spouse and that appellate review of dissipation findings is deferential. Consider early preservation of evidence (bank/ brokerage statements, settlement distributions) and timely objections to discovery failures if seeking fees.