In re Marriage of Jessee, 2019 IL App (2d) 180843‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Jessee, 2019 IL App (2d) 180843‑U (Order filed Sept. 11, 2019) (Rule 23 — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Pamela A. Jessee. Respondent‑Appellant: Joseph D. Jessee.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by treating petitioner’s Teachers’ Retirement System (TRS) pension (in pay status) as income rather than as a divisible marital asset.
- Whether the trial court erred in its allocation of responsibility for maintenance/expenses relating to several real properties (Orland Park, Willowbrook, Beecher, Lemont).
- Preservation/forfeiture of appellate issues.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s treatment of the TRS pension as income. Issues concerning the Willowbrook and Beecher properties were forfeited for being raised first on appeal; issues as to Lemont were forfeited for lack of citation to authority and for first being raised in the motion to reconsider.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Discretion and deference: Classification of pension benefits (income v. property) is within the trial court’s discretion. The trial court may consider how the pension was treated during the marriage — where a pension had been in pay status and the parties had treated it as income, the court did not err in using it as income for distribution/maintenance purposes.
- Preservation: Appellate review enforces forfeiture rules — challenges not raised in the trial court (or raised only for the first time on appeal) are forfeited. Raising issues for the first time in a motion to reconsider without adequate authority may also forfeit the point.
- Specific distributions: Trial court divided Lewis University pension (and directed QDRO if needed), equally divided 403(b) and IRA, awarded Orland Park to respondent, ordered Willowbrook and Beecher listed and proceeds split (with specified reimbursements), and deferred final disposition of Lemont pending litigation but equally split proceeds if any.

5) Practice implications (brief)
- Preservation matters: raise and brief issues at trial; include authority and develop the record; use targeted post‑trial motions that cite legal support.
- Pensions: litigate classification with evidence on whether a pension is in pay status and how it was treated during marriage; if seeking apportionment, request valuation evidence and prepare QDRO language.
- Property at risk: when marital property is subject to third‑party litigation, propose concrete allocation mechanisms (advance escrow, interim contributions, indemnity language) rather than open‑ended reimbursement limited to sale proceeds.
- Attorney fees/maintenance: ensure the record supports claims of unequal ability to pay; present financial projections (including imminent retirement) clearly to influence maintenance decisions.

Note: Because this is a Rule 23 order, it is non‑precedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).