In re Marriage of Manevski, 2019 IL App (2d) 180405-U

In re Marriage of Manevski, No. 2-18-0405 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Apr. 10, 2019) (Rule 23 order)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Aleksander Manevski (petitioner-appellant) and Olga Manveska (respondent-appellee), 2019 IL App (2d) 180405-U (Apr. 10, 2019). (Unpublished Rule 23 order.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly imputed gross income to the husband under 750 ILCS 5/505(3.2) when he changed his employment arrangements during divorce proceedings.
- Whether evidence supported imputing income based on prior corporate (S‑corp) earnings rather than the husband’s lower current driver pay.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed. The trial court lawfully imputed a gross income of $104,000 to the husband and set maintenance ($1,143) and child support ($1,342) based on that figure.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The trial court found that between 2016 and 2018 the husband changed from being owner (ASM Logistics) to lessee and then to a driver for a new entity (Sky Trans) in a manner intended to evade support obligations. The husband admitted he urged a friend to form Sky Trans and that Sky Trans’s payments effectively replaced ASM’s prior receipts.
- The court treated ASM as an S‑corporation (pass‑through), meaning corporate net income and officer compensation are relevant to the shareholder’s personal gross income for support purposes. The husband’s 2016 corporate tax return (gross receipts ≈ $190,436; officer compensation $20,000; net business income $18,749) supported substantially higher earning capacity than his claimed driver income (~$52,000).
- The husband’s deductions and cash withdrawals were found insufficient to rebut the earning potential reflected on the tax return; the court credited the trial court’s credibility determinations. The court accepted imputation based on prior documented earnings and the circumstances of the employment change.

5) Practice implications
- When a party shifts business structure/roles during pendency, counsel should gather and present full business and personal records: corporate tax returns, K‑1s, officer compensation, bank/credit card statements, cash withdrawal evidence, equipment leases/sales, third‑party contracts/payments, and electronic logs. Use such evidence to show prior earning capacity and possible intent to shelter income.
- Conversely, to rebut imputation, develop contemporaneous proof of legitimate business decline, regulatory changes that demonstrably reduce earning capacity (with specifics), documented unreimbursable business expenses, and expert forensic accounting analysis.
- Remember Rule 23 limits: this decision is unpublished and has restricted precedential value.