In re Marriage of Nasson, 2025 IL App (1st) 230951-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Nasson, 2025 IL App (1st) 230951-U (1st Dist. June 13, 2025) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Jessica Nasson. Respondent-Appellant: Steven Nasson. Third‑party attorney/appellee: Frumm & Frumm.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in (a) hearing/awarding a final fee petition for respondent’s attorney before resolving respondent’s petition for contribution, (b) finding dissipation by respondent and quantifying reimbursement, and (c) dividing the marital estate 60/40 in favor of the wife.
- Whether appellant preserved/fairly challenged the trial court’s listing of attorney-fee liabilities.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in all respects. The appellate court held the timing error (fee petition heard before the contribution petition) was harmless; the dissipation award was not against the manifest weight of the evidence; the 60/40 property division was not an abuse of discretion; the request for contribution was properly denied. Appellant’s argument about an incorrect attorney-fee listing was forfeited for failure to raise it below.

4) Significant legal reasoning (summary)
- Standard of review: credibility/findings and division of marital estate reviewed for abuse of discretion; factual findings (including dissipation) reviewed for manifest weight.
- Credibility: Trial court found Steven’s testimony evasive and not credible; it credited the wife’s and expert testimony (valuation expert Arogeti and others). The court valued Steven’s 40% interest in Turf at $800,000 based on expert evidence and pretrial valuations, rejecting Steven’s claim that his final $80,000 distribution equaled his stake. That credibility determination supported both valuation and dissipation conclusions.
- Dissipation: Wife’s claim of dissipation (~$234k notice) was mostly rejected, but trial court required reimbursement of $29,200.25 from respondent’s nonmarital funds (including $4,245.63 on an AMEX card). Appellate court found that award supported by the record.
- Attorney fees/timing: Although procedure would prefer resolving contribution claims before final fee awards, the sequencing error here was harmless given the record. Appellant failed to preserve a specific challenge to how the court listed his attorney liabilities, so appellate review was barred.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve objections: specific objections to fee accounting or debt listings must be raised at trial to avoid forfeiture on appeal.
- Sequence discovery/hearings: resolve claims for contribution/reimbursement before final fee awards where possible; if not, be prepared to show prejudice on appeal.
- Emphasize credibility and expert support: valuation and dissipation determinations turn on credibility and expert proof—document contemporaneous valuations and distributions and present clear forensic tracing for dissipation claims.
- Division of estate: courts consider statutory factors and nonmarital holdings; a substantial nonmarital estate and primary child‑care role can justify an unequal split and will be upheld absent abuse of discretion.