In re Marriage of Dickinson, 2021 IL App (5th) 200263-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dickinson, 2021 IL App (5th) 200263‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Dec. 27, 2021).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Melissa Dickinson. Respondent‑Appellant: David Dickinson.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) attributing roughly $150–158K withdrawn from a joint Vanguard account solely to David and using that finding in the property distribution, (b) awarding statutory maintenance and child support that, in combination, consumed a large portion of David’s net monthly income, and (c) prematurely ordering an allocation of future educational (college) expenses requiring David to pay 50% after Brightstart funds are exhausted. Also whether David was entitled to credits for temporary support paid and whether the maintenance termination date was erroneous.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all material respects. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion on property distribution, maintenance awards, or educational‑expense allocation. The court amended the maintenance termination date nunc pro tunc: termination changed from April 30, 2035 to April 30, 2034.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: property division reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings under the statutory factors reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court’s finding that David removed and used marital funds during the pendency (testimony showed withdrawals, transfers and expenditures on a house down payment, vehicles, personal goods, insurance, accounts to pay bills, etc.) was supported by the record and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court rejected David’s “double counting” argument because the record showed large unilateral expenditures (≈$200K over 20 months per testimony) and the purported overlap did not demonstrate impermissible double valuation.
- On maintenance, the court applied statutory factors (duration of marriage, incomes, Melissa’s lack of income/homemaking role) and set maintenance consistent with the statutory formula and equity; the combination of maintenance and child support did not constitute reversible error.
- On college expenses, the court’s order allocating future costs (after Brightstart 529 exhaustion) was not an abuse of discretion; the issue is commonly adjudicated in advance.

5. Practice implications
- Trial courts may rely on party testimony and circumstantial evidence to find dissipation/advancement of marital funds; attorneys must aggressively document expenditures, bank transfers and contemporaneous records when contesting such findings.
- “Double counting” claims require clear demonstration that the same asset/value was twice included in the distribution; mere overlap in timing or partial use of funds is insufficient.
- Maintenance awards that, combined with child support, consume a large share of payer income will be upheld if supported by statutory factors and factual findings. Preserve detailed income/expense proofs and argue credits for temporary payments at trial.
- Courts may allocate future college costs prospectively (subject to Brightstart or similar), so negotiate clearly drafted provisions or preserve arguments on prematurity and future review.
- Appellate courts can correct clerical or timing errors (nunc pro tunc) in maintenance termination dates.