In re Marriage of Micheli, 2014 IL App (2d) 121245

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Micheli, 2014 IL App (2d) 121245 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist. July 31, 2014).
- Petitioner‑Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Ellen Micheli. Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: John Micheli.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance of $3,700/month plus 20% of respondent’s future bonuses (reviewable after seven years) and whether maintenance should be permanent or of shorter duration.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded all unvested stock options and restricted stock units (RSUs) to respondent.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering respondent to contribute $10,000 toward petitioner’s attorney fees and in crediting him $5,000 for a payment to the child representative.
- Whether the appellate court could review the trial court’s disposition of a diamond embedded in petitioner’s engagement ring.

3) Holding/outcome
- Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The maintenance award of $3,700/month (reviewable after seven years) was upheld; however, the uncapped 20%‑of‑bonuses component was an abuse of discretion and was remanded for the court to impose an appropriate cap tied to petitioner’s needs/standard of living.
- The award of all unvested stock options/RSUs to respondent was reversed (abuse of discretion) and remanded.
- The $10,000 attorney‑fee contribution was not an abuse of discretion, but the crediting of respondent’s $5,000 payment (made from a marital account) must be revisited on remand.
- The court declined to review the diamond disposition because petitioner’s notice of cross‑appeal failed to preserve that issue.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Maintenance: applied 750 ILCS 5/504(a) factors and the rehabilitative vs. permanent maintenance framework. Trial court’s findings re: length of marriage, contributions, reduced earning capacity, and need were supported; but awarding an uncapped percentage of future bonuses without relating it to petitioner’s needs or marital standard of living risked an indefensible windfall and therefore exceeded the court’s discretion. Appellate standard: abuse of discretion; factual findings reversed only if against manifest weight of evidence.
- Stock options/RSUs: unvested equity is marital property in many cases; granting all unvested awards to respondent bore no demonstrated connection to the broader property division and could produce an unjust windfall.
- Fees/credits: fee allocation was within trial discretion given billing disparities and relative financial positions, but credits from marital funds warrant scrutiny.

5) Practice implications
- Avoid structuring maintenance as an uncapped percentage of future bonuses; tie bonus‑based awards to documented needs, living standard, or impose a dollar cap and review mechanism.
- Treat unvested equity as marital property subject to equitable distribution; if trading equity for other retirement assets, clearly articulate the quid pro quo and valuation method to avoid reversal.
- When seeking or opposing fee awards, document litigation conduct, comparative billing, and future earning capacity; be precise about source of any pretrial payments to preserve (or defeat) credit arguments.
- Preserve appellate issues carefully in the notice of appeal/cross‑appeal (property dispositions can be forfeited by inadequate notices).