In re Marriage of Josephson, 2022 IL App (2d) 210031-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Josephson, 2022 IL App (2d) 210031‑U (Order filed June 28, 2022) (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist.) (Supreme Court Rule 23(b) order — not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).
- Petitioner‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Craig A. Josephson.
- Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Cynthia M. Barrile‑Josephson.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court correctly classified and distributed marital property acquired between the parties’ effective separation in August 2018 and the December 2020 dissolution (specifically, cars, checking account balances, and debts).
- Whether unpaid invoices/accounts receivable (income earned but unpaid before judgment) were marital assets subject to division or whether treating them as assets is impermissible “double‑dipping” given maintenance.
- Whether the trial court erred in valuing personal property, setting maintenance, requiring life insurance as security for maintenance, or awarding attorney fees.

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed in part: the trial court erred in failing to equitably distribute marital property acquired after August 2018 and before the dissolution (cars, account balances, debts) and in refusing to treat the unpaid invoices as marital assets. Those items must be apportioned consistent with the court’s 55%/45% division.
- Affirmed in other respects: the valuation of personal property (trial court used cost to move/store as FMV), the setting of guideline indefinite maintenance, the refusal to require life insurance to secure maintenance, and the attorney fee award.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory presumption (750 ILCS 5/503): property acquired after marriage and before entry of dissolution judgment is marital property; exceptions (e.g., judgment of legal separation) require clear and convincing proof and were not shown. The court abused its discretion by treating an August 2018 withdrawal and de facto separation as cutting off the marital property period.
- Accounts receivable/unpaid invoices are marital assets (Schneider and related authority); treating them as property to be divided is not improper “double‑dipping” because section 503(d)(10) allows property division without regard to maintenance.
- Where parties present no objective valuation evidence, the trial court may rely on its experience; here using Cynthia’s transport/storage bills as the FMV of the personal property was not an abuse.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Preserve and prove dates: establish the operative “date of dissolution” and avoid informal asset splits being treated as legal separation. If alleging dissipation or nonmarital claims, plead and prove them with clear-and-convincing evidence.
- Treat accounts receivable/unpaid invoices as marital assets: present evidence (invoices, billing records) and argue for division — maintenance calculations do not preclude property division.
- Present contemporaneous, expert, or documentary valuations (especially for vehicles, household goods, and business receivables) when disputing trial court valuation.
- If seeking security for maintenance, move specifically for life insurance or other security and develop record on necessity/risk; don’t assume court will order insurance.
- Preserve objections and develop a statutory argument in written submissions and closing to avoid forfeiture.