In re Marriage of Majewski, 2023 IL App (2d) 220050-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Majewski, 2023 IL App (2d) 220050-U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Feb. 28, 2023) (Rule 23 order; not precedent).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Mario Majewski. Respondent-Appellant: Jolanta Majewski.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly barred respondent’s dissipation claim as untimely.
- Whether the trial court appropriately denied respondent any maintenance.
- Whether the trial court properly allocated marital property (tools, business accounts, and various businesses).

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision to bar Jolanta’s dissipation claim as untimely.
- The court reversed the trial court’s permanent denial of maintenance (manifest weight error) and remanded.
- The court found an abuse of discretion in failing to allocate certain tools and business accounts and remanded for further proceedings on allocation.
- The court did not err in declining to allocate several businesses where the record showed no interest by Mario at trial. The judgment was therefore affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Timeliness of dissipation claim: The trial court relied on its case-management orders and the closed discovery schedule (December 2019 order, discovery deadlines extended several times but closing dates preceded the notice). Jolanta served a Notice of Intent to Claim Dissipation the weekend before (and formally on) the originally scheduled trial date—more than 30 days after the discovery cutoff and essentially at the eve of trial. The trial court concluded (and the appellate court agreed) that the late notice unfairly prejudiced Mario and violated the Act’s procedures and the court’s discovery deadlines.
- Maintenance: The trial court’s denial of maintenance rested on a misunderstanding of whether the parties had an agreement regarding maintenance. The appellate court concluded that the trial court’s factual/misapprehension made the denial against the manifest weight of the evidence and warranted reversal.
- Property allocation: The record lacked evidence that Mario held interests in several businesses at trial, justifying no allocation as to those entities. But the court abused its discretion by failing to allocate identifiable marital tools and business accounts that the record showed existed and required division.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- Timeliness is critical for dissipation claims: raise dissipation during discovery, serve the statutorily required Notice of Intent well before trial and before discovery cutoff, and seek timely extensions if financial discovery is incomplete. Late notices risk exclusion.
- Preserve and document any maintenance agreements or expectations in discovery and at hearing; misapprehensions by the trial court can be reversible error.
- When marital businesses or accounts are at issue, develop and introduce clear ownership evidence (titles, account statements, ledgers). If assets may be dissipated, promptly seek injunctive relief, inventory orders, or turnover to avoid loss and to support dissipation or valuation claims on the merits.