In re Marriage of Gildersleeve, 2019 IL App (2d) 180712-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Gildersleeve, 2019 IL App (2d) 180712-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Sept. 30, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Lori Marie Gildersleeve; Respondent-Appellant: Walter L. Johnson.

2) Key legal issues
- Classification (marital vs. nonmarital) of multiple pre‑marriage investment and bank accounts, and a Motorola Solutions 401(k), where respondent claimed nonmarital status by tracing.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in the disposition of certain personal property.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded attorney fees to petitioner (reasonableness/record).

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
- It upheld the trial court’s classification of several of respondent’s pre‑marriage investment accounts and his Motorola 401(k) as marital because respondent failed to meet his tracing burden.
- It reversed the trial court’s ruling that the Northeast Investors Trust account was marital (i.e., treated that account as nonmarital).
- It found the trial court abused its discretion in awarding certain personal property to petitioner (e.g., some vehicle awards) and vacated the attorney‑fee award, remanding for a hearing on fee reasonableness.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Tracing and transmutation: the court reiterated that a party claiming nonmarital character bears the burden of tracing and proving the asset’s separate identity. Repeated withdrawals/transfers between pre‑marriage accounts and marital funds, without clear evidence of tracing, will ordinarily transmute the funds into marital property.
- Evidentiary sufficiency: the trial court permissibly rejected respondent’s self‑prepared spreadsheets and ad hoc mathematical demonstrations where they were incomplete, misleading, or unsupported by an expert; respondent’s inability to explain hundreds of transactions undermined his tracing claim.
- Expert/competent proof required: complex percentage calculations (e.g., for 401(k) nonmarital portion) must be supported by reliable proof or admissible expert testimony; lay math that is unintelligible or demonstrably erroneous is insufficient.
- Appellate correction: where the record established that a particular inheritance account (Northeast) retained its separate character, the appellate court corrected the trial court’s division.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- If claiming nonmarital character, prepare complete, admissible tracing evidence; retain forensic accountants/CPAs for complex accounts and pension/401(k) pro‑rata calculations.
- When stipulating voluminous financial records, provide court‑ready summaries/highlights and identify disputed transactions on the record.
- Avoid reliance on unsworn/self‑prepared exhibits or lay calculations for complex accounting; establish expert foundation.
- Preserve offers of proof and a clear record on disputed asset classifications and fee reasonableness to survive appeal.