In re Marriage of Horlbeck, 2023 IL App (2d) 210351-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Horlbeck, 2023 IL App (2d) 210351‑U (2d Dist. Sept. 6, 2023). Petitioner‑Appellee: Todd Horlbeck. Respondent‑Appellant: Laura Horlbeck.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether two homes (a Wisconsin vacation home and the St. Charles marital residence) were marital or non‑marital property after a 2009 deed transfer to wife.
- Whether attorney’s fees incurred in business/bankruptcy litigation (specifically $185,000 paid to attorney John Burke) constitute marital debt payable from marital assets.
- Whether Todd should be judicially estopped from claiming marital interests in the properties because he did not list them on his 2015 Chapter 7 bankruptcy schedules.
- Evidentiary posture: appellate review on a record largely consisting of a certified bystander’s report and stipulated exhibits.

3. Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court. The trial court’s findings that both homes were marital property and that Burke’s attorney’s fees were marital debt were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court’s denial of Laura’s motion for partial summary judgment (judicial estoppel) was affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Credibility and weight determinations were for the trial court: it found that both properties were purchased with marital funds and, despite deed transfers in 2009 for estate planning, the transfers were not intended as gifts and the parties treated the assets as jointly owned. Those credibility findings supported classifying the homes as marital.
- The court considered that funds from the Wisconsin sale were used for family maintenance and child support, reinforcing marital character and equitable division. The St. Charles home (no mortgage) was ordered sold with specific allocations (children’s trust, attorney fees including $185,000 to Burke, a modest award to Todd, remainder to Laura).
- On judicial estoppel, the court rejected automatic application: the bankruptcy nondisclosure did not conclusively bar Todd because the parties disputed whether he had an ownership interest to disclose and because the marital interest theory was tied to dissolution timing (the court referenced section 750(e) of the Marriage Act). The bankruptcy trustee’s awareness and counsel guidance also undercut estoppel.
- Appellate review emphasized manifest‑weight standard and limited record (bystander’s report and stipulated exhibits).

5. Practice implications
- Transfers to a spouse for “estate planning” can be reclassified as marital if purchased with marital funds and evidence shows no donative intent—document intent and counsel advice when making interspousal transfers.
- Judicial estoppel in family cases requires clear, inconsistent prior sworn positions and prejudice; mere omission from bankruptcy schedules may not suffice where ownership/vested interest is contested.
- Preserve a full trial transcript; reliance on a bystander’s report limits appellate argument.
- Trial courts have wide discretion to treat attorney fees paid from marital funds (including business‑litigation fees) as marital debt; litigants should trace expenditures and argue necessity/reasonableness.