In re Marriage of Joachim, 2019 IL App (2d) 180876-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Joachim, No. 2-18-0876, 2019 IL App (2d) 180876-U (Ill. App. Ct. June 10, 2019) (Rule 23 order, non-precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellant: Lorraine (Dyba) Joachim. Respondent/Appellee: Mark Joachim.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether husband dissipated marital assets in connection with (a) the sale of the Sterling home and (b) unaccounted cash expenditures.
- Classification and division of the Dixon home after husband refinanced nonmarital farm debt to acquire it (application of 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(6.5)).
- Whether crop proceeds (2017 crop) were marital and, if so, their valuation.
- Whether wife was entitled to attorney fees under section 503(j).

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dissolution judgment.
- The trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence: no dissipation by husband regarding the Sterling sale or his cash withdrawals; the Dixon home was nonmarital under §503(a)(6.5) (and, even if marital, there was no distributable equity after reimbursement to husband’s nonmarital estate); only a modest marital interest in crop proceeds (reflecting spouse’s personal labor); no award of wife’s requested attorney fees. Several of wife’s appellate arguments were forfeited for lack of cogent legal analysis.

4) Significant legal reasoning (condensed)
- Dissipation: The court emphasized intent and benefit — dissipation requires misuse of marital assets to deprive the marital estate; here husband did not cause the well contamination, did not benefit, and bore the loss (he borrowed to cover the shortfall), so no dissipation. Wife also failed to make a prima facie showing regarding alleged unaccounted cash expenditures; husband rebutted with credible evidence that cash withdrawals were for ordinary personal/household expenses.
- §503(a)(6.5) and reimbursement: Husband used nonmarital farm-credit collateral to obtain loans used to buy the Dixon home. Under §503(a)(6.5), property acquired by using nonmarital property as loan collateral can remain nonmarital; even if classified marital, reimbursement principles require the marital estate to reimburse the nonmarital estate for contributions, leaving no distributable equity here.
- Crop proceeds: court accepted that only the portion attributable to husband’s personal labor constituted a marital contribution (small dollar value as testified).
- Appellate procedure: several arguments forfeited where appellant provided no legal analysis or authority.

5) Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Dissipation claims require clear proof of intent to deprive and demonstrable benefit to the dissipating spouse; documentary proof and tracing are critical.
- When clients use nonmarital assets as collateral to buy property, consider §503(a)(6.5) and reimbursement remedies; structure and documentation of loans and paydown history are decisive.
- Maintain contemporaneous records for cash withdrawals and farm/crop accounting (hours, rates, yields) to establish or defend marital interest claims.
- Preserve appellate issues with focused legal argument and authority — under Rule 23 decisions, forfeiture for lack of cogent analysis will be enforced.