In re Marriage of Ibrahim, 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Ibrahim, 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 28, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant/Defendant-Appellant: Wasif Ibrahim. Respondent-Appellee/Plaintiff-Appellee: Ayna Mantyyeva; Goldentree Properties, LLC; third‑party defendant: Enejan Mantyyeva.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering discovery sanctions (precluding evidence of undisclosed business interests) and excluding tax returns.
2. Whether the court properly imputed income to the father/husband for child‑support calculations.
3. Whether funds Ayna used to capital‑contribute to two LLCs were marital or non‑marital (gift characterization).
4. Whether Wasif was a member of Goldentree and whether he must reimburse Goldentree for a $40,000 unauthorized withdrawal.
5. Whether counts of Wasif’s third‑party complaint against Enejan (derivative/member claims) should be dismissed.

- Holding / outcome (concise)
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in (a) granting the in limine discovery sanction, (b) imputing $7,500/month to Wasif for child‑support purposes, (c) treating Ayna’s interests in Lux and her 25% interest in Goldentree as non‑marital (funded by gifts from her father), and (d) ordering Wasif to reimburse Goldentree $40,000. The appellate court also affirmed dismissal of Wasif’s third‑party membership/derivative claims.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Discovery sanction: Trial court acted within its discretion to bar evidence that Wasif failed to produce in discovery about numerous business entities; exclusion was appropriate where Wasif offered evasive, undocumented testimony about “shell” businesses and failed to authenticate tax returns.
- Imputation of income: Because Wasif’s testimony about business income was inconsistent, unsupported by records, and he failed to account for company transactions, the trial court reasonably imputed income for child‑support and expense calculations.
- Characterization of property: The record established that Ayna received monetary gifts from her father and used those funds to make capital contributions to Lux and Goldentree; gifts kept their non‑marital character and were properly allocated to her.
- Corporate formality/membership: Although Wasif filed articles listing himself, credible evidence (operating agreement, parties’ intent, testimony) showed he made no capital contribution and was not a Goldentree member; his unilateral withdrawals were unauthorized, requiring restitution.

- Practice implications (takeaways for counsel)
- Fully disclose and document business interests in family litigation; discovery failures risk exclusion and imputed income.
- Preserve bank records, operating agreements, K‑1s, and proof of source of funds (gifts) to support characterization claims.
- Filing organizational forms (or being listed as agent) is not dispositive of membership—substance (capital contribution, operating agreement, parties’ intent) matters.
- Unauthorized withdrawals from LLC accounts can trigger restitution claims even in concurrent dissolution litigation.
- Note: opinion issued under Rule 23 (not precedent except limited circumstances).