In re Marriage of Ianuzzi, 2022 IL App (2d) 210196-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Ianuzzi, 2022 IL App (2d) 210196-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Apr. 7, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Hilary Bahe Ianuzzi. Respondent-Appellant: Jared Charles Ianuzzi.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether two investment properties (874 Emerald Drive and 1012 Como Circle) were marital or non‑marital under 750 ILCS 5/503(a) (presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital; exceptions must be shown by clear and convincing evidence).
- Whether the trial court improperly adjudicated equitable ownership interests of non‑parties without joining them.

3. Holding/outcome
- Judgment of dissolution affirmed.
- Emerald: trial court found a one‑third interest was marital (Hilary failed to prove that one‑third derived from a nonmarital inheritance).
- Como: trial court found Hilary’s ownership traceable to nonmarital sources (her nonmarital business interest in Bahe, Inc., and contributions from third parties), so Bahe’s one‑half interest was treated as Hilary’s nonmarital property.
- No reversible error in findings regarding equitable ownership of third parties — no non‑party interests were adjudicated.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: property classification reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence; the Act’s presumption of marital property may be rebutted only by clear and convincing proof of an enumerated exception.
- Emerald: testimony conflicted as to source of purchase funds; trial court credited evidence that Ryan and Bahe each supplied one‑third but found Hilary failed to prove her claimed inheritance funded the remaining one‑third, so the one‑third was marital.
- Como: trial court credited documentary tracing and testimony (deposits, Bahe account use, loans to Bahe) and found Hilary overcame the presumption for the portion attributable to her nonmarital business interest and third‑party contributions.
- On non‑party interests: appellate court concluded the trial court did not purport to adjudicate third‑party rights — it only allocated interests between the spouses — so joinder of third parties was not required.

5. Practice implications
- Burden and proof: when asserting a nonmarital source, lawyers must present clear, convincing, and traceable documentary evidence (bank records, wire transfers, contemporaneous documentation) and consistent testimony; courts may reject uncorroborated claims of inheritance or third‑party funding.
- Credibility and tracing dominate classification disputes — anticipate and develop precise paper trails for funds used in real‑estate transactions.
- Joinder caution: if your client is a third‑party contributor and expects the court to protect that interest, consider seeking joinder or seeking explicit relief to avoid ambiguous factual findings that might affect rights indirectly.
- Procedural compliance: note this is a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential except in limited contexts) and counsel should adhere strictly to Illinois Supreme Court citation and briefing rules to avoid procedural criticism on appeal.