In re Marriage of May, 2024 IL App (1st) 221485-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of May, No. 1-22-1485, 2024 IL App (1st) 221485-U (1st Dist. Dec. 23, 2024).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Patrick Martin May. Respondent-Appellant: Mary Lydia May.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a notice of intent to claim dissipation under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii)) must include a specific date or period when the marriage began an irretrievable breakdown, and whether omission of that timeframe is a fatal procedural defect that justifies exclusion of the dissipation claim.
- Whether the opposing party waived objection to a facially defective dissipation notice by filing a substantive response.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of petitioner’s motion in limine barring respondent’s dissipation claims. The court held Mary’s dissipation notices were deficient for failing to specify the date/period of irretrievable breakdown as required by section 503(d)(2)(ii), and the defect justified exclusion. Waiver argument rejected.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court treated the statutory requirement to identify “a date or period of time during which the marriage began undergoing an irretrievable breakdown” as mandatory for a dissipation notice. That temporal allegation is necessary to define the timeframe for alleged dissipative conduct and to afford the responding spouse a fair opportunity to defend.
- Mary’s separate pleadings and admissions (general allegations of irretrievable breakdown) did not cure the statutory deficiency in her dissipation notice. Nor did Patrick’s substantive denials in discovery or response amount to waiver of the procedural defect; the trial court could properly exclude the claim where the notice failed to provide the statutorily required temporal specificity and thus prejudiced the defense.
- The appellate court emphasized procedural compliance with the Act’s dissipation notice rules as prerequisite to litigating dissipation at trial.

5) Practice implications (brief, for litigators)
- When asserting dissipation under 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(ii), plead a clear date or narrow period when the marriage began to break down — don’t rely on general petition language.
- Serve amended notices promptly if the timeframe becomes clearer during discovery.
- If defending against dissipation claims, object early and consider a motion in limine to exclude claims that lack the statutory timeframe, even if you substantively respond.
- Preserve the record on timing (depositions, discovery responses) to avoid surprise and to rebut waiver arguments.
- Treat the Act’s procedural requirements as jurisdictionally significant to avoid exclusion of claims at trial.