In re Marriage of Mansoor, 2023 IL App (3d) 220216-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Mansoor, 2023 IL App (3d) 220216-U (Ill. App. Ct. July 13, 2023) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Javairia Mansoor. Respondent-Appellant: Syed Shazan Mohammed.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court’s monetary valuation ($30,000) for missing nonmarital jewelry (or alternatively ordering its return) was supported by competent evidence.
2. Whether the incomplete record on appeal (photographs of jewelry not included) prevents review.
3. Proper scope of credibility findings versus the need for evidentiary support when valuing property in dissolution.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court vacated that portion of the dissolution judgment requiring respondent to return the jewelry or pay $30,000 and remanded for further proceedings. The court concluded the valuation was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Incomplete record: the court held omission of photographic exhibits did not bar review because jewelry value cannot be reliably established from photographs alone; thus appellate review could proceed.
- Evidentiary burden: the party seeking a monetary award for missing/nonmarital property must present competent evidence of value (appraisals, receipts, expert testimony). Here neither party produced appraisals or admissible valuation evidence.
- Credibility v. value: while credibility determinations are for the trial court, credibility findings cannot substitute for a factual basis to support a specific monetary valuation. The trial court resolved conflicting witness testimony in part by discrediting respondent’s claim that wedding jewelry was costume jewelry, but the appellate court found the court went beyond permissible credibility determinations by fixing a $30,000 valuation without competent evidentiary support.
- Manifest weight review: given the absence of valuation evidence and reliance on speculative inference, the court concluded the valuation was against the manifest weight of the evidence and remanded.

- Practice implications (for attorneys)
- When seeking recovery or an offset for specific (especially missing) nonmarital items, introduce competent proof of value (appraisals, receipts, expert testimony, market evidence). Photographs alone are poor substitutes.
- Preserve and include exhibits in the record on appeal; while photos may not establish value, they may be relevant to other issues and failure to include them risks affirmance presumptions.
- If client alleges opponent concealed property (safe deposit box, etc.), develop and introduce direct evidence (bank records, witness testimony, discovery responses) rather than relying on inference.
- Trial courts should avoid speculative valuations and explain evidentiary bases; practitioners should move for further proceedings or evidentiary hearings if valuation evidence is lacking.