In re Marriage of Loubnan, 2020 IL App (5th) 190365-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Loubnan, No. 5-19-0365 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Jan. 10, 2020) (Rule 23 order — non-precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Georgette Loubnan. Respondent-Appellant: Labib El Kahwaji.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) dividing marital property (including classification of an Arizona residence), (b) awarding temporary maintenance, (c) finding dissipation of marital assets based on pre- and post-separation transfers to family, (d) allocating parental responsibilities and parenting time, and (e) permitting petitioner’s relocation for employment.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion or reach a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence on property division, maintenance, parental-responsibility allocation, relocation, classification of the Arizona home as marital property, and the finding of dissipation.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: discretionary family-law determinations (property division, maintenance, parenting, relocation) reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings for manifest weight.
- Marital-property classification: the Arizona home, acquired during the marriage, was treated as marital property despite a recorded disclaimer deed; the trial court’s conclusion was supported by the surrounding facts and timing.
- Dissipation: large transfers (multiple six-figure transfers to respondent’s father and a $10 transfer of the Arizona house to parents) around separation were found to be dissipation. The court relied on timing, amounts, and suspiciousness of nominal transfers to family to infer intent to deprive the marital estate.
- Parenting and relocation: trial court balanced child’s best interests, petitioner’s role as primary caretaker, employment reasons for relocation (Barnes Jewish Hospital in St. Louis), and safety concerns arising from alleged domestic violence. Protective/no-contact orders and modified exchange locations supported safety-based adjustments to parenting time.
- Temporary maintenance: award supported by the parties’ respective incomes, needs, and conduct; within trial court’s discretionary range.

5. Practice implications
- Aggressive preservation and forensic accounting are critical when transfers occur around separation — seek expedited discovery, TROs, asset-freeze or injunctions, and subpoenas to trace transfers.
- Beware nominal intra-family transfers (e.g., $10 deeds) — courts scrutinize timing and intent and may treat them as dissipations. Challenge recorded disclaimers where facts suggest sham transfers.
- When relocation is tied to employment, document job offer, salary, commute feasibility, and proposed parenting plan to minimize appellate risk.
- Safety allegations (orders of protection, no-contact orders) can materially influence custody and exchange arrangements; preserve evidentiary record.
- Remember Rule 23 status: persuasive but non-precedential; arguments should still frame standards (abuse of discretion, manifest weight) for appellate review.