In re Marriage of Hamilton, 2019 IL App (5th) 170295

In re Marriage of Hamilton, 2019 IL App (5th) 170295

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hamilton, 2019 IL App (5th) 170295 (Ill. App. Ct. June 5, 2019).
- Petitioner/Appellee & Cross‑Appellant: Donald R. Hamilton Jr. (“Don”).
- Respondent/Appellant & Cross‑Appellee: Mary L. Hamilton (“Mary”).

2) Key legal issues presented
- Whether horse‑related expenses for the parties’ minor daughter constituted “extracurricular activities” for which a parent may be ordered to contribute.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering sale of the marital real estate.
- Allocation of marital debt.
- Whether Mary made a prima facie showing of dissipation.
- Whether Don improperly liquidated retirement accounts and whether Mary was entitled to a share.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mary attorney fees.
- Whether the trial court erred in awarding permanent maintenance to Mary and in requiring Don to pay half of the daughter’s private school tuition (issues raised on cross‑appeal).

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
- Notably, the court concluded the trial court erred by adopting too narrow a definition of “extracurricular activities” and by finding the daughter’s horse‑related activities were not extracurricular; that finding was reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal standard.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The panel focused on the trial court’s legal characterization of “extracurricular activities.” The trial court had equated extracurriculars only with activities “related to school education,” excluding hobbies. The appellate court found that characterization erroneous in light of the evidence that the daughter participated in hippology, 4‑H (a University of Illinois program), statewide competitions, riding lessons, and activities directly tied to her stated vocational goal (equine veterinary work), including hands‑on care assisting veterinarians.
- The appellate court emphasized that whether an activity is “extracurricular” is within the trial court’s discretion but requires correct legal framing and consideration of the record showing educational or vocational nexus (e.g., competitive 4‑H/hippology, speech and “horse bowl” competitions, and clinically relevant hands‑on experience).
- The opinion also recounts procedural and evidentiary background relevant to other family law determinations (income figures used to calculate maintenance, discovery disputes, contempt and retirement withdrawals), setting context for the remand.

5) Practice implications
- Trial courts must apply the correct legal standard when classifying child‑related expenses; a narrow “school curriculum only” definition risks reversal.
- Parties should develop and admit an evidentiary record showing links between extracurricular activities and educational/vocational objectives (program affiliations, competitions, hands‑on experience).
- Preserve and document claims of dissipation and any withdrawals of retirement funds (include contemporaneous motives and accounting).
- When seeking allocation of private school or activity expenses, frame requests with evidence of educational/vocational nexus and quantify costs; obtain specific findings on income used for maintenance and expense apportionment to reduce appellate risk.
- On contested real‑property disposition and fee awards, seek detailed findings of hardship, liquidity, and reason for sale to withstand review.