In re Marriage of Lisk, 2021 IL App (4th) 200031-U

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Lisk, No. 4-20-0031, 2021 IL App (4th) 200031-U (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 26, 2021) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Tammy L. Lisk; Respondent-Appellant: Dale W. Lisk; Intervenor-Appellee: Ronald Perrine. (Justice Turner dissented; decision under Rule 23—limited precedential value.)

2. Key legal issues
- Proper valuation and division of marital property in a dissolution (whether debts/obligations must be included in the court’s valuation and whether a valuation date was required).
- Whether the trial court properly found and remedied dissipation of marital assets.
- Admissibility/consequences of deemed admissions from unresponded Requests to Admit.
- Validity of an intervenor’s interpleader claim and recovery against the marital estate.

3. Holding/outcome
The Fourth District affirmed. The trial court’s valuation and 50/50 distribution (with an equalizing judgment to Tammy) and its finding of dissipation were upheld. The court also affirmed entry of a $20,408 judgment in favor of intervenor Perrine and the ordered process for liquidating equipment at Perrine’s property to satisfy his claim.

4. Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Deemed admissions: Dale failed to timely respond to Requests to Admit, so the trial court properly treated the attached appraisals, sale records, and stated values as admitted—these admissions supported the court’s valuation and findings.
- Dissipation: The court relied on extensive factual findings (mortgage nonpayment, serious disrepair, animal movements/sales, prior contempt findings) to conclude Dale dissipated marital assets; the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s factual conclusions and equitable division.
- Valuation/debts/date: The appellate court rejected Dale’s contention that the trial court’s valuation was erroneous for failing to subtract debts or set a formal valuation date, finding the evidence before the court supported the valuation and distribution scheme. Trial-court discretion in asset division and factual findings reviewed for abuse/manifest-weight; none found.
- Interpleader/third-party claim: Perrine’s claim for costs to care for abandoned cattle was properly resolved against the marital estate; the trial court’s ordering of sale proceeds allocation (pay Perrine, then apply remaining proceeds to Tammy’s equalizing judgment) was permissible.

5. Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Respond to Requests to Admit promptly—failure can be dispositive and supply critical valuation evidence.
- Vigorous compliance with discovery is essential: repeated noncompliance risks contempt, deemed admissions, and unfavorable factual findings.
- Document dissipation early (records of sales, transfers, failures to maintain property); move quickly for relief (contempt, injunctive relief, temporary orders).
- When third parties claim rights to marital assets, consider interpleader or assert third-party claims early; trial courts can order liquidation and priority allocation.
- Appellate review is deferential on factual valuation and discretionary divisions—develop a robust evidentiary record at trial.