In re Marriage of Evanoff, 2016 IL App (1st) 150017

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Margarete Evanoff (Petitioner–Appellee) and Clayton Tomasek (Respondent–Appellant), 2016 IL App (1st) 150017 (1st Dist., June 27, 2016).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly (a) imputed income to respondent for maintenance calculation; (b) valued/divided marital assets (including capital/partnership accounts and residence); (c) found no dissipation when petitioner used proceeds from privately held stock to fund children’s 529 accounts and purchased a Porsche post-separation; (d) allocated attorney fees and dependency exemptions; and (e) addressed irregular/after-acquired partnership distributions (Arthur Andersen/partner payouts).

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects. Trial court’s imputation of $11,500 to respondent (total income $40,000) and award of $4,300/month permanent maintenance were upheld. The court’s property division (roughly 60/40 in respondent’s favor, 50/50 on sale proceeds of residence) and denial of dissipation claims were affirmed. Trial court’s rulings on attorney fees ($15,000 to respondent) and treatment of partner distributions and dependency exemptions were also upheld (with court deferring to IRS guidance on tax exemptions).

4) Significant legal reasoning (digest for practitioners)
- Standard of review: factual findings and discretionary rulings (income imputation, property division, maintenance, dissipation, attorney fees) are reviewed for abuse of discretion and will stand unless clearly erroneous.
- Imputation: trial court may impute income based on education, skills, and earning capacity even if current earnings are low; evidence supporting market capacity sufficed here.
- Dissipation: spending is dissipation only when assets are diverted for a nonmarital purpose to defeat the other spouse’s rights. Transfers of proceeds to children’s 529 accounts, where evidence showed discussions/intent to fund education and mutual benefit, were not dissipation. Purchase of a Porsche post-separation likewise not found to be dissipative given record.
- Property division & valuations: trial court’s valuation choices and overall split fell within its broad discretion.
- Partner distributions/irregular payouts: court can address distribution of future/irregular partnership proceeds; here it later ordered payouts split 50/50 and deferred dependency exemption issues to IRS guidance.

5) Practice implications
- When alleging dissipation, develop clear tracing and proof of nonmarital intent/purpose; mere post-separation spending or payments for children’s education may be non-dissipative if jointly intended/beneficial.
- To fight or obtain income imputation, present concrete evidence of market earning capacity (past earnings, skills, comparable positions).
- Preserve valuation evidence and secure targeted findings on capital/partnership accounts and future distributions; request express orders/notice provisions for irregular partner payouts and clear directives on tax exemptions.
- Expect appellate deference to trial courts on discretionary family-law determinations; obtain specific factual findings to aid appellate review.