In re Marriage of Heist, 2020 IL App (2d) 190384-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Heist, 2020 IL App (2d) 190384-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Nov. 17, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellant-Cross-Appellee: Robert C. Heist. Respondent-Appellee-Cross-Appellant: Kendelle L. Cornette (f/k/a Kendelle Heist).

2. Key legal issues
- Proper scope of the appellate remand from the parties’ first appeal (Heist I) and whether the trial court complied.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding indefinite (permanent) maintenance to respondent.
- Whether the trial court’s valuation and allocation of pre- and post-separation marital debt were against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the court properly allocated proceeds and sale-related expenses of the marital residence.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying leave to reopen discovery/proofs on dissipation.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court: affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded solely for a maintenance-review hearing.
- Specifically: the indefinite maintenance award was vacated (trial court abused its discretion); the trial court’s valuation and allocation of marital debt, allocation of sale proceeds/expenses, and denial to reopen discovery as to dissipation were affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Remand scope: The appellate panel concluded the trial court misread the prior remand (from Heist I). Heist I required the trial court to revisit RCA-related salary calculations and to recalculate maintenance; the trial court improperly treated maintenance as resolved and nevertheless awarded indefinite maintenance.
- Maintenance: The appellate court found the indefinite maintenance award an abuse of discretion given the need for the trial court to reassess income findings and maintenance necessity/duration; therefore the maintenance order was vacated and the matter remanded for a review hearing (not a full retrial).
- Debt valuation/allocation: The court held the trial court’s valuation of Kendelle’s post‑separation debt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and the allocation (including ordering sale-related costs to be paid from proceeds) was within the trial court’s discretion.
- Dissipation/discovery: The denial to reopen discovery and proofs on dissipation was not an abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- Carefully track and comply with appellate remand instructions; do not construe remands narrowly when the appellate opinion directed specific recalculations.
- Avoid awarding indefinite maintenance without explicit, supported factual findings on need, ability to pay, and permanence; if income findings are contested, resolve them before setting duration.
- Ensure precise accounting and arithmetic in final orders (appellate opinions will scrutinize calculations and allocations).
- When ordering sales of marital property, explicitly allocate sale-related expenses and credits in the judgment to reduce post-judgment disputes.
- Be prepared to justify (or oppose) reopening discovery with a clear showing of materiality and diligence; courts defer to trial-court discretion.