In re Marriage of Liszka, 2016 IL App (3d) 150238

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Liszka, 2016 IL App (3d) 150238 (3d Dist. Sept. 27, 2016). Petitioner-Appellee: Kathleen Liszka. Respondent-Appellant: Michael Liszka.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding respondent’s valuation expert as a discovery sanction.
- Whether the court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to allow the expert’s testimony.
- Whether imputed income ($17,500/month) to respondent for child-support purposes was supported by the evidence.
- Valuation and division of marital business assets (ISP Painting, Inc. and Coreman Technologies), treatment of retained earnings, and admissibility of 2013 tax returns.
- Denial of maintenance and treatment of attorneys’ fees/dissipation claims.
- Whether a trust for child support was properly imposed.

3. Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s property and maintenance rulings but reversed and remanded on two discrete issues: (1) exclusion of Michael’s valuation expert was improper, and (2) the imputation of $17,500/month income to Michael was unsupported. All other portions of the dissolution judgment were affirmed.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Expert exclusion: The Third District concluded the trial court abused its discretion in barring Michael’s expert (Mary Lynn Hoffer). The record showed the parties had exchanged financial data (including unredacted documents) and Michael had identified Hoffer in advance; the late production of her written report did not justify the extreme sanction of total exclusion without first considering lesser remedies (e.g., continuance). Because the exclusion prevented Michael from contesting the business valuation, it implicated the fairness of the property division.
- Imputed income: The court found the $17,500/month imputation lacked adequate evidentiary support. Imputation of income requires a reasonable basis in the record (earnings history, job opportunities, earning capacity, voluntary unemployment/underemployment). Here the evidence did not sustain that specific figure, so remand was required to reassess child support consistent with proper proof.
- Affirmances: The appellate court found the trial court reasonably relied on Kathleen’s expert (CPA Zouzias) for ISP’s valuation as of 2011, awarded ISP and Coreman to Kathleen with buyout payments to Michael, denied maintenance, rejected dissipation claims, and largely upheld estate division and home valuation.

5. Practice implications for family-law attorneys
- Sanctions: Courts should prefer narrow, proportionate remedies (continuance, limited exclusion, fee shifting) over total exclusion of expert testimony unless willfulness or prejudice is clear and unavoidable. Preserve arguments for lesser remedies and obtain specific findings if exclusion is imposed.
- Discovery timing: Timely exchange of valuation reports and complete financials (including tax returns) is critical; but late disclosure does not automatically support exclusion absent clear prejudice.
- Imputation: When seeking imputation of income, present concrete, quantifiable evidence of earning capacity or voluntary reduction in income; courts will scrutinize large monthly imputations.
- Valuation strategy: Present contemporaneous valuations and address gaps in later financials; if expert exclusion occurs, expect appellate scrutiny and possible remand.