In re Marriage of Grant, 2023 IL App (5th) 220291-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Grant, 2023 IL App (5th) 220291‑U. Petitioner‑Appellant: Debbie Grant; Respondent‑Appellee: Todd Grant. Appeal from Union County Circuit Court (No. 19‑D‑39).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court made the statutorily required factual findings (classification and valuation) for marital and nonmarital property under 750 ILCS 5/503(a).
2) Whether the property division was equitable and whether the trial court considered the section 503/504 factors.
3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in determining Todd’s income for spousal maintenance and in permitting termination of life insurance that had been used to secure temporary maintenance.

- Holding / outcome
The Fifth District reversed and remanded. The appellate court found the circuit court’s property valuation/classification and its maintenance determination were defective — against the manifest weight of the evidence or an abuse of discretion — and the property division was not supported by required findings.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The Act requires “specific factual findings as to its classification of assets as marital or non‑marital property, values, and other factual findings supporting its property award” (750 ILCS 5/503(a)). The appellate court relied on precedent that failure to determine values of substantial assets justifies reversal (In re Marriage of Rosen, 126 Ill. App. 3d 766 (1984)), and reviewed valuation/distribution for manifest weight/abuse of discretion (In re Marriage of Hubbs, 363 Ill. App. 3d 696 (2006)). Here, the trial court (1) treated Todd’s 1/9 interest in GHG, LLC as nonmarital without receiving admissible testimony or valuation evidence of its current worth; (2) failed to value or adequately account for liquid proceeds from the marital home sale (parties disputed whether proceeds were excluded from the marital estate); and (3) set Todd’s monthly income at $5,194 without explanation while excluding known historical rental income ($833/month) and then left maintenance to be “automatically recalculated” if rent resumed. Because the court did not make necessary factual findings or apply statutory factors, its property and maintenance rulings could not stand.

- Practice implications (concise)
Counsel should ensure the record contains competent valuation evidence for all significant assets (including alleged nonmarital interests), obtain written agreements/orders about disposition of sale proceeds, and present clear income proof when maintenance is at issue. Request specific written findings under 750 ILCS 5/503(a) and explicit consideration of section 504 factors; secure maintenance with life insurance in the decree or a court order that prevents unilateral termination; and preserve post‑trial motions when findings are omitted.