In re Marriage of Kopecky, 2023 IL App (4th) 220548-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Kopecky, 2023 IL App (4th) 220548-U.
- Petitioner-Appellee: Tracey Sims Kopecky. Respondent-Appellant: Matthew P. Kopecky.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s allocation of significant decision‑making authority and parenting time (majority to mother) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court equitably divided the marital estate and properly treated a claimed premarital loan/dissipation.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded contribution toward petitioner’s attorney fees.
- Whether the trial court’s procedures violated respondent’s due‑process rights.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Fourth District affirmed. The trial court’s custody/parenting time allocation, property division (equal split with an unequal cash adjustment because respondent retained the marital home), denial of maintenance, and award of attorney fees were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. No reversible due‑process violation was found.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: manifest‑weight review; appellate court deferred to trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments.
- Custody/parenting: the trial court applied the statutory best‑interest factors (750 ILCS 5/602.5(c) and 5/602.7). It credited the custody evaluator’s recommendation and found the children well‑adjusted in mother’s home, that mother facilitated the father’s relationship, that the parties could not cooperate effectively, and that continuity (school, therapy) favored mother. Credibility: trial court found mother credible and father less so — a determinative factor given testimonial conflicts.
- Property division: the court considered section 503 factors, valued the marital estate at ~$433,118, divided it equally, and ordered respondent to pay a cash equalization (~$77,462) because he retained the home. The court allowed part of respondent’s dissipation/premarital‑loan claim (≈ $20,000) to be considered but rejected other dissipation theories.
- Attorney fees: the court found contribution appropriate based on disparity of resources and need to permit petitioner to litigate effectively (consistent with earlier temporary relief findings).
- Due process: respondent had notice, opportunity to present evidence, and appellate court found no procedural deprivation.

5. Practice implications
- Credibility findings and custody‑evaluator reports are highly persuasive on appeal; trial lawyers should build and preserve testimonial credibility on the record.
- Continuity of children’s educational/medical services and demonstrated facilitation of the other parent’s relationship are critical factors.
- When awarding the house to one spouse, courts may equalize with cash payments; maintain clear valuations and liquidity plans.
- Timely and specific pleadings/supporting evidence for dissipation claims are essential; broad or late dissipation notices risk being limited or struck.
- For fee petitions, document disparity of income, litigation necessity, and past temporary fee orders to support a contribution award.