In re Marriage of Kilby, 2023 IL App (3d) 210566-U

In re Marriage of Kilby, 2023 IL App (3d) 210566-U (Ill. App. Ct. 3d Dist. Mar. 22, 2023) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kilby, 2023 IL App (3d) 210566-U. Petitioner-Appellee: Lori A. Kilby. Respondent-Appellant: Craig P. Kilby.

2) Key legal issues
- Proper computation of spouse’s gross/net income from a farming business for maintenance purposes (inclusion/deduction of business items including depreciation).
- Appropriateness of three‑year income averaging for maintenance.
- Allocation of college expenses under 750 ILCS 5/513.
- Award of attorney’s fees as discovery sanction under Ill. S. Ct. R. 219(c).
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying motions to reconsider and to reopen evidence (including admission of a late expert/accounting analysis).

3) Holding/outcome
- Appellate court affirmed. Trial court’s maintenance computation (monthly maintenance $8,223.79, retroactive to Oct. 2019), 50% contribution to son’s college costs, and attorney‑fee sanction ($7,935) were upheld. Motions to reopen and reconsider were properly denied.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court did not abuse its discretion in adopting petitioner’s three‑year averaging income projection and refusing the respondent’s lower income figure because respondent failed to produce adequate financial evidence or a reliable farm valuation. The record showed repeated discovery noncompliance and incomplete/ambiguous financial affidavits from husband.
- The trial court’s treatment of depreciation aligned with existing Third District authority (citing In re Marriage of Hochstatter) — the court declined to permit respondent to deduct nonaccelerated depreciation from business income where the statutory framework and presented evidence did not support such a deduction.
- Denial to reopen evidence was appropriate: respondent did not show sufficient justification or that late evidence would likely change the result; trial courts have broad discretion to manage evidence and sanction discovery violations.

5) Practice implications
- For family law matters involving farms/businesses: obtain and present detailed business records and an expert valuation/accounting analysis before trial. Vague or late financial affidavits risk forfeiture of disputed deductions or reliance on the other party’s projections.
- Courts may use income averaging when fluctuating/sparse records exist; litigants opposing such calculations must put forward reliable, contemporaneous evidence.
- Repeated discovery noncompliance can yield Rule 219 sanctions (attorney fees) and weaken challenges to income findings. Motions to reopen evidence face a high bar absent compelling justification and timely disclosure.
- Though nonprecedential, the decision reinforces prudent practice: document discovery compliance, timely retain experts, and quantify proposed depreciation or business‑expense adjustments in the record.