In re Marriage of Jablonski, 2019 IL App (2d) 180427-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jablonski, 2019 IL App (2d) 180427-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. Aug. 14, 2019).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Sherry Jablonski. Respondent-Appellant: Theodore Jablonski.

2. Key legal issues
- Proper imputation of income to the ex-wife.
- Calculation and characterization of maintenance (including deviation from statutory guidelines).
- Use of historical bonuses and corporate receipts to determine maintenance; treatment of corporate retained earnings and loans to shareholders.
- Classification of tax returns and corporate loans as marital property.
- Enforcement/interpretation of agreed temporary orders and disposition of marital business (including future sale proceeds).
- Award of attorneys’ fees.
- Adequacy of the record on appeal.

3. Holding/outcome (short)
- The appellate court affirmed many aspects of the trial court’s rulings but reversed and remanded in part. Affirmed: no imputation of income to Sherry; permissibility of deviating from guidelines; use of a 9‑year bonus look‑back; awards based on 50% of annual bonus or 8.23% of gross receipts; awarding maintenance from retained earnings above a threshold; annual financial disclosure; classifying tax returns and shareholder loan as marital; and awarding attorney’s fees. Reversed: failure to cap future bonus‑based payments; failure to follow terms of an agreed order re vacation property; and the grant of 50% of gross proceeds from any future sale of the marital corporation. Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court deferred to the trial court’s factual findings given the incomplete appellate record and the trial court’s broad discretion on maintenance (including deviation from statutory guidelines where supported by length of marriage, homemaker status, and disparity in earning capacity).
- The trial court reasonably considered a 9‑year historical pattern of large year‑end bonuses to determine the husband’s ability to pay and to frame maintenance, and treated certain corporate items (tax returns, shareholder loan) as marital based on evidence and stipulations.
- The appellate court found legal error where the trial court set open‑ended future entitlements (no cap on future bonus‑derived maintenance) and awarded an unduly broad interest (50% of any future gross sale proceeds of the business) without adequate legal or factual support and contrary to an agreed order.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Preserve a complete trial record; gaps on appeal are construed against the appellant.
- When negotiating agreed orders, be explicit about incorporation into final judgment and caps/limits on future payments, bonuses, and dispositions of business interests.
- If corporate bonuses are a consistent source of income, use multi‑year analyses and robust corporate financial evidence; address whether bonuses are salary, distribution, or retained earnings.
- Anticipate disputes over tax deductibility of maintenance; obtain pro forma returns and CPA testimony early.
- Seek clear repayment schedules for officer loans and clear valuation dates for real property and businesses; if seeking future sale proceeds, define proceeds (net vs. gross) and caps.
- Preserve arguments on imputation of income, deviation from guidelines, and scope of post‑judgment financial disclosure.