In re Marriage of Maple, 2022 IL App (2d) 210354‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Maple, No. 2‑21‑0354 (2d Dist. Mar. 18, 2022) (Rule 23(b) order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Erin Maple. Respondent/Appellant: Douglass Maple.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether proceeds from sale of property purchased with commingled funds (an inheritance deposited into joint accounts) are marital property.
- Whether the trial court’s factual finding that respondent retained/control/“hid” those sale proceeds was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in allocating marital property by offsetting $350,009.20 from petitioner’s 401(k) to account for respondent’s retention of sale proceeds.
- Procedural: effect of a stricken “Notice of Dissipation Claim” that failed to allege the statutorily required date/period.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court’s finding that respondent retained control of the sale proceeds was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the property division (including the 401(k) offset) was not an abuse of discretion.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Commingling/follow‑the‑money: Respondent’s inheritance was deposited into joint accounts and used (directly or indirectly) to buy the Budd Road property; that commingling converted the inheritance into marital property, and proceeds from its sale were therefore marital.
- Credibility and burden of explanation: The trial court rejected respondent’s claim that the cash proceeds were spent because he produced no accounting or corroborating documents for the claimed expenditures; clandestine cash withdrawals and inconsistent testimony supported the court’s conclusion that respondent retained/control of the funds.
- Standard of review: Appellate court deferred to trial court on credibility and factual findings (manifest weight) and on the discretionary property allocation (abuse of discretion).
- Dissipation claim: petitioner’s formal “Notice of Dissipation Claim” was stricken for failing to allege the statutory timeframe, but the court still treated the proceeds as marital based on commingling and lack of accounting rather than on a formally pleaded dissipation theory.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- Plead dissipation carefully: comply with 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii) — specify the date/period of alleged dissipation or risk striking.
- Document expenditures: a party alleging it spent large marital funds must produce contemporaneous records; failure to account invites a court to treat funds as retained marital assets.
- Beware commingling: depositing an inheritance into joint accounts or otherwise using it for marital purposes risks converting it to marital property.
- Prepare for offsets: courts may effectuate equitable offsets (including from retirement accounts) when one spouse is found to have retained marital proceeds.
- Preserve objections and motions on numeric/clerical discrepancies (e.g., $4,000 offset gap) if relevant to remedy.