In re Marriage of Kiamco

Full Case Summary

Case Summary

Judgment Overview

Presiding Justice Brennan delivered the judgment, supported by Justices Holdridge and Peterson. The court affirmed and partially dismissed Vickie Kiamco's appeal based on failure to provide a complete record for specific claims, including trial court bias and findings regarding the petitioner’s income, and lacking jurisdiction over post-decree challenges.

Case Background

The marriage between Robin and Vickie Kiamco began on June 12, 1999, and they have two emancipated children. The petitioner filed for dissolution on July 23, 2021. The couple initially resided in Wood Dale, but after the filing, the petitioner moved to property owned by a family trust while the respondent remained in their marital home.

Legal Proceedings

Vickie, initially represented by Beermann LLP, filed various motions including requests for temporary maintenance and attorney fees. The court ordered temporary maintenance and set obligations for both parties, but compliance issues arose, especially regarding document requests from the petitioner. A significant motion for modification was filed by Vickie on April 7, 2022, alleging misconduct related to the petitioner’s financial disclosures.

Claims and Motions Filed

The respondent raised multiple claims, including violations of the ADA, judicial bias, and errors regarding financial disclosures. Numerous motions concerning financial responsibilities and property rights were filed, asserting that the petitioner concealed assets and engaged in forgeries. The respondent also faced challenges in presenting her case due to changing legal counsel and withdrawal of representation.

Trial Proceedings

The trial lasted eight non-consecutive days, with numerous motions submitted, many of which were denied. The petitioner claimed substantial attorney fees were incurred due to the respondent's excessive filings and violations of court procedures. Closing arguments were submitted but Vickie did not comply with this requirement.

Financial Assessments

The court reviewed both parties' incomes: the petitioner reported a gross income of $32,279.94 for 2022 while the respondent earned $38,725 in 2021. The court established that maintenance was inappropriate and declared both parties "forever barred" from receiving it. The marital residence was to be sold with proceeds allocated to cover joint debts, including significant withdrawals made by the respondent.

Post-Decree Proceedings and Appeal

The respondent contested several aspects of the trial and sought to appeal, claiming errors were made regarding accommodations for her disability and other procedural matters. However, the appellate court noted deficiencies in the record on appeal, which limited the evaluation of her claims. The court ruled that incomplete records presumed the trial court's orders were appropriate. Ultimately, the appeal was partially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The judgment from the circuit court of Du Page County was affirmed, with part of the appeal dismissed due to insufficient filing and jurisdictional issues. Vickie was ordered to contribute towards the petitioner's attorney fees from the marital residence proceeds.