In re Marriage of Goodman, 2019 IL App (2d) 170621-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Goodman, 2019 IL App (2d) 170621‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist., July 31, 2019; Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Stacy Goodman; Respondent‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Dru Goodman; Intervenor‑Appellant on appeal: Illinois Department of State Police.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the Dru Goodman CXG Investment Trust (CXG Trust) and its holdings, and certain retained earnings of related business entities, were marital or non‑marital property;
2) Whether an award of periodic maintenance (vs. maintenance in gross) was appropriate;
3) Validity and scope of a plenary order of protection and related FOID‑card relief;
4) Whether the trial court properly awarded Stacy large statutory contribution to attorney fees (amount, interest) without adequate evidentiary support; and
5) Whether the Illinois Department of State Police could intervene to challenge a trial court order directing reinstatement/return of a FOID card possibly inconsistent with the FOID Card Act.

- Holding / outcome (concise)
The appellate court: affirmed the trial court’s classification of the CXG Trust and its holdings and of certain retained earnings as Dru’s non‑marital property; affirmed ordering periodic maintenance (Stacy awarded $65,000/month indefinitely until death, remarriage, or qualifying cohabitation); affirmed entry of the plenary order of protection (prohibiting surveillance). Reversed the award of interest to Stacy on the attorney‑fee contribution and vacated the attorney‑fee award portion for lack of an adequate hearing on reasonableness; remanded for an appropriate fee hearing. Reversed the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of the Department’s petition to intervene, granted intervention, and remanded further proceedings regarding the FOID‑card order.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Property: the appellate court agreed the record supported finding the CXG Trust and retained earnings were non‑marital (relying on trust/corporate documentation and timing/character of transfers and holdings); because Dru retained/control and the trust/entity structures supported non‑marital characterization, summary judgment was proper as to those holdings. The court did not reach whether DDG interest was misclassified because Dru received the interest and did not seek reallocation if classification were reversed.
- Maintenance: the court endorsed the trial court’s factual findings (including the Miller cohabitation standard) in ordering indefinite periodic maintenance rather than a maintenance‑in‑gross award.
- Fees: although statutory contribution (750 ILCS 5/503(j)) permits shifting, the appellate court emphasized the necessity of an evidentiary hearing and concrete proof of reasonableness before awarding large lump‑sum attorney fees and interest; inability to demonstrate the requested amounts required vacatur/remand.
- FOID/Intervention: a trial court should not enter orders that effectively direct a state agency to act contrary to statute; the Department has standing to intervene to vindicate statutory obligations, so dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways for family lawyers)
- When litigating classification of trusts/corporate holdings, develop a clear documentary and evidentiary record on trust terms, timing, control, and distributions to support (or attack) non‑marital characterization; summary judgment is possible with strong documentary proof.
- For large attorney‑fee/contribution requests under §503(j), obtain and present detailed billing, fee expert testimony or hearing evidence to establish reasonableness before expecting a lump sum award or prejudgment interest.
- Be cautious about consent or orders that purport to compel state agencies (e.g., FOID) to reinstate or return licenses/cards—anticipate intervention and statutory constraints.
- In maintenance disputes, anticipate close factual scrutiny of cohabitation and lifestyle evidence; courts may award indefinite periodic maintenance where justified.
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order (not binding precedent), but useful guidance on evidentiary requirements for fee orders and intervention/FOID issues.