In re Marriage of May

Case Summary: In Re the Marriage of Patrick Martin May and Mary Lydia May

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Case Number: 2024 IL App (1st) 221485 -U

Date: December 23, 2024

This case involves the dissolution of marriage proceedings between Patrick Martin May (Petitioner-Appellee) and Mary Lydia May (Respondent-Appellant), initiated under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Background

Patrick filed for dissolution on October 1, 2018, claiming irreconcilable differences but did not specify when the marriage had irretrievably broken down. Mary filed a counter-petition on November 1, 2018, also lacking a definitive date. In 2020, Mary filed a notice of intent to claim dissipation, which was amended but similarly did not include a breakdown date.

As the case progressed, Patrick filed a motion in limine prior to the trial, seeking to bar Mary's dissipation claims due to her failure to identify a specific date for the alleged breakdown. The court granted his motion, concluding that the absence of a date prevented a proper defense against the dissipation claims.

Trial Proceedings and Rulings

The trial commenced on August 24, 2021, with Mary failing to make an offer of proof regarding her dissipation claims during the trial. The trial court ultimately issued a judgment for dissolution on November 1, 2021, without addressing Mary's dissipation claims, which she later sought to reconsider. Her motion was denied, leading to the current appeal.

Issues on Appeal

Mary contended that the trial court erred in granting Patrick’s motion in limine, asserting that any objections to her dissipation notices were waived when Patrick responded without challenging them. She also argued that the statute's requirements regarding the breakdown date were directory rather than mandatory.

Court's Decision

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It found that Mary's notices did not comply with the statutory requirement of including a date for the irretrievable breakdown, rendering them defective. The court held that the statutory language was mandatory and that Mary’s claims could not proceed due to her failure to fulfill this prerequisite.

Conclusion

The judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed, upholding the decision to bar Mary’s dissipation claims based on procedural deficiencies in her filings.