In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2023 IL App (4th) 230025-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Garnhart, 2023 IL App (4th) 230025‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist., Dec. 28, 2023) (Rule 23 non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Justin Garnhart. Respondent‑Appellant (pro se): Meghan Garnhart. Appeals consolidated: Nos. 4‑23‑0025 and 4‑23‑0246.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether respondent stipulated to petitioner’s retention of a particular retirement account.
- Whether the trial court properly imputed income to respondent for child‑support calculations and declined to treat a parental loan to petitioner as income.
- Allocation of management authority over 529 college savings accounts.
- Valuation and equitable division of equity in the marital residence (valuation and 71%/29% split).
- Allocation/credit for guardian ad litem (GAL) fees paid from sale proceeds.
- Whether respondent’s section 2‑1401 motion / attempt to vacate dissolution judgment warranted relief; jurisdictional question whether appeal was premature.

3. Holding/outcome
- Appeal in No. 4‑23‑0025: affirmed in all respects — respondent failed to show reversible error.
- Appeal in No. 4‑23‑0246 (challenge under 735 ILCS 5/2‑1401): dismissed for lack of a final, appealable order.
- Court also criticized respondent’s pro se appellate brief for violating Rule 341 (insufficient record citations and authority) but reached the merits nonetheless.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: deference to trial court on credibility, factual findings, and equitable division. Appellant bears burden to show error.
- Retirement account: trial court relied on testimony and equitable allocation; even absent an express stipulation, the allocation was reasonable.
- Imputed income: trial court made the required finding of voluntary underemployment (characterizing respondent as “willfully and defiantly underemployed” and minimizing income from her cat‑breeding business); thus imputation was appropriate. The parental loan to petitioner was not treated as income.
- 529 accounts: trial court awarded management to petitioner but restricted withdrawals (no withdrawals without respondent’s written consent or court order) — a permissible balancing of management and child protection.
- Residence valuation/division: court selected midrange valuation ($220,000) based on conflicting testimony and allocated equity largely to petitioner because he maintained and paid the mortgage; such factual judgments were upheld.
- GAL fee credit: trial court’s 50/50 credit was supported by the record facts about joint ownership/refinance history.

5. Practice implications (brief)
- Preserve and substantiate objections in the trial record (appellate review is deferential). Obtain contemporaneous appraisals or market evidence for property valuation.
- When challenging imputation of income, target the trial court’s factual finding that underemployment was voluntary and produce contrary, specific evidence.
- Distinguish loans from income in the record; litigants should document intent/repayment to avoid characterization as income.
- If seeking to vacate via 2‑1401, ensure you are appealing a final, appealable order; otherwise the appeal may be dismissed.
- Comply strictly with Rule 341 when briefed pro se or with counsel; failure to cite the record/authority risks waiver.