In re Marriage of Guiher, 2022 IL App (4th) 210322-U

In re Marriage of Guiher, 2022 IL App (4th) 210322‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Guiher, No. 4‑21‑0322 (Ill. App. Ct., 4th Dist. Apr. 15, 2022).
- Petitioner‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Carla Guiher. Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Gary Thomsen.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent’s posttrial motion to reopen proofs to introduce documentation about an Edward Jones IRA.
- Whether the trial court erred in classifying the entire Edward Jones IRA as marital property where portions originated from respondent’s pre‑marital/nonmarital accounts and/or should have resulted in reimbursement.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying petitioner’s requests for maintenance and contribution to attorney fees given the property division.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in part and reversed in part. Appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to reconsider/reopen proofs (no abuse of discretion). It reversed the trial court’s characterization of the entire IRA as marital and its denial of reimbursement for nonmarital contributions (finding those rulings against the manifest weight of the evidence). The case was remanded for recalculation of the property division and for the trial court to reevaluate petitioner’s maintenance and attorney‑fee requests in light of the corrected division.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Denial to reopen proofs: The appellate court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard and found no abuse in the trial court’s refusal to reopen the record post‑trial to admit additional documentation.
- Classification/tracing: Illinois law treats assets existing prior to marriage as nonmarital unless their identity is lost by commingling; tracing by clear and convincing evidence is required to preserve nonmarital character or obtain reimbursement. The trial court concluded tracing was insufficient and treated the entire IRA as marital. The appellate court held that, on the record (including Respondent’s Exhibit D showing pre‑marital account values and testimony as to transfers), the nonmarital contributions retained their identity or at minimum entitled respondent to reimbursement; the trial court’s contrary finding was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Remand: Because the property division materially changes, the appellate court remanded for reconsideration of maintenance and fee awards.

5) Practice implications
- Preservation and documentation are critical: obtain and introduce contemporaneous account statements, transfer records, and clear tracing evidence for any claimed nonmarital funds rolled into commingled accounts.
- If seeking reimbursement or nonmarital classification, build an evidentiary record sufficient to satisfy the clear‑and‑convincing tracing standard.
- Post‑trial motions to reopen are discretionary and difficult to win absent compelling justification.
- Expect courts to revisit maintenance and fee determinations after substantive changes to the property division on appeal or remand.