In re Marriage of Fanady, 2022 IL App (1st) 201100-U

In re Marriage of Fanady, 2022 IL App (1st) 201100-U (1st Dist. Mar. 2, 2022) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 order — non‑precedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Fanady, 2022 IL App (1st) 201100‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Steve Fanady. Respondent‑Appellee: Gina Demke Fanady. Appeal from Cook County (dissolution and allocation judgments).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred by imputing $500,000 annual income to husband for child‑support purposes.
- Whether the court erred by refusing to admit/take judicial notice of a Belize Supreme Court order.
- Whether the court erred in permitting wife to call husband as an adverse witness despite an earlier discovery‑sanction order.
- Whether the court erred by allocating joint decision‑making responsibilities over the minor child when the parties agreed they could not co‑parent.
- Whether the court erred in awarding wife attorney fees on a petition for rule to show cause that was denied.

3) Holding/outcome
- The Appellate Court affirmed the circuit court in all respects.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Imputation of income: The trial court’s imputation of $500,000 was affirmed because the record supported findings that husband was voluntarily unemployed, lacked credibility, and had access to significant income/assets (notably an offshore family trust that paid his expenses and funded litigation). The court relied on husband’s qualifications, work history, asset access, and IMDMA factors (citing sections 505(a)(3.2) and 505(a)(1.5)) — and appellate review afforded deference to credibility and discretionary determinations.
- Belize order: The trial court permissibly refused to take judicial notice of a foreign court order; authentication and proper evidentiary procedure are required for foreign judgments/orders, and the trial court did not abuse discretion.
- Adverse‑witness/discovery sanction: The appellate court upheld the trial court’s decision to allow wife to call husband as an adverse party witness under the Code (735 ILCS 5/2‑1102). The court treated that testimony and the discovery sanction consistently within the trial court’s discretionary authority.
- Allocation of parental responsibilities: The allocation (including joint decision‑making elements) was within the trial court’s discretion and based on best‑interest considerations and the evidentiary record (including the 604(b) evaluator’s report and parental conduct/communication problems).
- Attorney fees: The award of fees arising from the rule to show cause proceeding was within the trial court’s discretionary authority and supported by the record.

5) Practice implications
- Courts will impute substantial income where a party has significant undocumented access to trust funds/assets and gives evasive testimony — robust financial discovery and clear record of trustee control/access are critical.
- Foreign court orders require proper authentication and evidentiary foundation; expect refusal of mere “judicial notice.”
- Discovery sanctions and the ability to call an adverse party are distinct issues; counsel should preserve objections and understand 735 ILCS 5/2‑1102 practice.
- Appellate courts defer to trial courts on credibility, custody allocation, and fee awards — preserve record and elicit clear findings if contesting discretion.