In re Marriage of Kocmoud, 2019 IL App (2d) 170654-U

In re Marriage of Kocmoud, 2019 IL App (2d) 170654‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Jan. 16, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kocmoud, 2019 IL App (2d) 170654‑U.
- Petitioner/Counter‑Respondent‑Appellee: Kimberly Kocmoud. Respondent/Counter‑Petitioner‑Appellant: Phillip Kocmoud.

2. Key legal issues
- Proper valuation of a closely held marital business (Hyper‑iT Services) when expert testimony raised debt and owner‑compensation issues.
- Treatment of specific corporate liabilities (two $50,000 loans) in determining market value.
- Internal inconsistency between the trial court’s factual finding of fair market value for an asset (airplane hangar) and the different figure used in the property distribution calculation.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court vacated in part and remanded. The valuation of Hyper‑iT and the distribution calculation as to the airplane hangar were vacated; the case was remanded for recalculation consistent with the court’s factual findings and the evidence.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Valuation is a factual determination reviewed for manifest weight. However, a factfinder may not ignore undisputed evidentiary items or discount unchallenged expert testimony without impeachment or contradiction.
- The trial court erred by disregarding an executed loan agreement (two $50,000 loans) that was the only evidence about that liability and which made repayment demandable; treating those loans as speculative “may or may not be repaid” was contrary to the record.
- The court also discounted the expert’s uncontradicted testimony that lack of owner/officer compensation rendered Hyper‑iT’s market equity minimal or zero; the appellate court found no basis in the record for discounting that opinion.
- As to the hangar, the court’s distribution arithmetic used a value inconsistent with its express factual finding (found FMV $100,000 but used $130K then $120K in distribution). The court must base distributions on the values it actually finds credible.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- When valuing a closely held business, introduce/secure all liability documentation (loan agreements, repayment terms) and evidence on officer compensation; failures will be treated as substantive evidence of diminished value.
- Preserve and fully develop expert testimony on marketability adjustments (owner compensation), and ensure opposing counsel’s challenges are recorded if you intend valuation to be disregarded.
- During bench trials, obtain explicit, consistent findings of fact and check the final judgment for arithmetic consistency between findings and distributions; use post‑trial motion to correct any inconsistency.
- Proactively address whether debts are contingent or demandable; if loans are demandable, argue they must reduce business market value.
- Remember the manifest‑weight standard: appellate relief is available where findings are unreasonable or contrary to undisputed evidence.

(Note: Rule 23 order — non‑precedential except as allowed.)