In re Marriage of Porikos-Gorgees, 2021 IL App (2d) 190559-U

In re Marriage of Porikos‑Gorgees, 2021 IL App (2d) 190559‑U

Parties
- Elizabeth Porikos‑Gorgees (petitioner–appellant/cross‑appellee) v. Samuel Gorgees (respondent–appellee/cross‑appellant).

Key legal issues
- Whether various post‑breakdown withdrawals, transfers, and expenditures by Elizabeth constituted dissipation of marital assets.
- Proper division of a high‑value business (Brow Art) and other marital property (including real estate), allocation of tax liabilities, maintenance and child‑support determinations, and security for property awards (life insurance).
- Whether Elizabeth was properly held in indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with pre‑distribution orders.

Holding / Outcome (short)
- Appellate court: affirm in part, reverse/vacate in part, and remand.
- Reversed one trial‑court finding of dissipation and vacated the property distribution (remand for further proceedings).
- Vacated the zero‑dollar child‑support award and reversed the maintenance award to Samuel.
- Held a court may not require life insurance as security for a property judgment.
- Affirmed trial court’s contempt finding against Elizabeth.
- On Samuel’s cross‑appeal: affirmed that Elizabeth’s expenditures for a blow‑dry/hair‑styling business were not dissipation, affirmed allocation of half the parties’ principal federal tax liability to Samuel, and affirmed that each party bears their own attorney fees/costs.

Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Dissipation requires proof that one spouse intentionally wasted or depleted marital assets for a nonmarital purpose after the marriage began to break down; the party alleging dissipation bears the burden of specific, traceable proof.
- The court scrutinized timing, purpose, and tracing of distributions from Brow Art (Elizabeth was sole shareholder; Samuel voluntarily stopped working for the business). Large distributions and loans (including funding of Ooh La La) were scrutinized, but the appellate court found at least one dissipation finding unsupported by the record and insufficient tracing.
- Pre‑distributions to Samuel were treated as advances against his marital share; the propriety and effect of those sums informed the property division and contempt analysis.
- The court distinguished security devices: ordering life insurance to secure future maintenance/child support is distinct from using life insurance to secure a property award — the latter was impermissible here.

Practice implications for family lawyers
- Plead and prove dissipation with precise tracing and temporal nexus to the marital breakdown; general allegations and broad accounting summaries risk reversal.
- Preserve and marshal business valuation proof when one spouse is sole owner and large post‑separation transfers occur; anticipate expert valuation disputes.
- Use alternative security (escrows, liens) rather than life insurance to secure property awards.
- Treat pre‑distribution orders seriously—failure to comply can lead to contempt and appellate affirmance.
- Allocate tax liability issues early and document payments; courts will allocate principal tax liabilities even amid complex asset disputes.