In re Marriage of Durchslag, 2019 IL App (2d) 180038-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Durchslag, 2019 IL App (2d) 180038-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Dec. 3, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Toby Durchslag. Respondent-Appellant: Scott Durchslag.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding (a) permanent maintenance and child support, (b) the contested property division and classification of marital assets, (c) findings of dissipation, and (d) attorney fees; and whether procedural defects (law‑of‑the‑case/deprivation of due process) required reversal or other relief.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings as to maintenance, property distribution, asset classification, and dissipation. It rejected Scott’s due‑process and law‑of‑the‑case arguments. The attorney‑fee award contained a mathematical error and was reduced/corrected on appeal. (Order filed under Rule 23; non‑precedential.)

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standards and deference: The court reiterated that maintenance, property allocation and dissipation findings are reviewed for abuse of discretion and that a successor judge should ordinarily give deference to the original trial judge’s factual findings about the parties and their lifestyle.
- Maintenance: The record supported permanent maintenance (Toby was essentially unemployable given disability, long absence from workforce, caregiving role; Scott had exceptional earning capacity). The trial court’s use of statutory factors (750 ILCS 5/504) and its balancing of needs and earning capacity met the abuse‑of‑discretion standard.
- Law‑of‑the‑case/due process: The appellate court noted law‑of‑the‑case requires a prior appellate decision and thus did not strictly apply; nonetheless, deference to the earlier judge was appropriate. Scott’s complaints about delay and piecemeal rulings did not rise to a constitutional due‑process violation; delays were partly attributable to the parties.
- Dissipation and property division: The court upheld findings that Scott dissipated funds after the breakup (specific amounts were charged for different periods) and affirmed the unequal split (67% to Toby, 33% to Scott) given the disparity in earning capacity and marital standard of living.
- Attorney fees: The trial court allocated responsibility for counsel fees but made a mathematical error in its award; the appellate court corrected/reduced the award accordingly.

5. Practice implications
- Preservation: Challengeable fact findings are difficult to overturn absent clear abuse of discretion; ensure a developed evidentiary record on income potential, health, and standard of living.
- Successor judges: While law‑of‑the‑case needs a prior appeal, successor judges should give substantial deference to earlier trial findings; litigants seeking change should present fresh evidence.
- Orders: Draft judgments with precise calculations (attorney‑fee allocations, retroactivity, and offsets) to avoid remand or correction for mathematical errors.
- Maintenance drafting: Avoid attempting to enter “unallocated” maintenance/child‑support orders in contravention of statutory limits; tie awards clearly to statutory factors and duration rationale.