In re Marriage of Prieto, 2022 IL App (3d) 210340-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Prieto, 2022 IL App (3d) 210340-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Nov. 18, 2022) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Damian E. Prieto. Respondent-Appellee: Debra L. Prieto.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in (a) awarding maintenance to the respondent under 750 ILCS 5/504 and (b) the manner and amount of the equalization/payment from the petitioner’s 401(k) and overall property division.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding maintenance ($997.95/month for 244 months) or in the equalization/payment structure involving the parties’ 401(k) (respondent received a $43,000 equalization payment and then the remaining marital portion was split equally).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion for maintenance and property allocation. The appellate court emphasized the trial court’s broad fact‑finding role and deference where the record supports findings.
- Maintenance: trial court relied on statutory factors (750 ILCS 5/504(a)) — party ages, marriage duration, earnings and earning capacity, contribution as a homemaker, health issues, retirement benefits, and existing division of assets/debts. The court imputed gross annual income to respondent ($24,400 based on $11.75/hr × 2080) and found petitioner’s consistent high earnings (~$80–$89K recent gross) and no impairment to his earning capacity. The length of maintenance equaled the length of the marriage; the award was calibrated to the parties’ net incomes and the respondent’s demonstrated need and reduced earning capacity.
- Equalization/retirement: the court treated $43,000 as an equalization payment from the petitioner’s primary 401(k), then split the remaining marital portion equally; the court also designated the respondent as alternate payee for half the marital portion of future retirement benefits. The allocation of marital debt and contingent issues (respondent’s pending personal‑injury proceeds) were considered but did not render the division inequitable.
- The appellate court found the record — income figures, testimony about employment history, health and caretaking contributions, and asset valuations — supported the trial court’s factual determinations.

5. Practice implications
- Trial courts have wide discretion; preserve factual record on income, earning capacity, health, retirement values, and household contributions.
- Use clear documentation for retirement valuations and proposed equalization mechanics; consider alternate‑payee language for future benefits.
- Address underemployment/imputation arguments with concrete evidence (job history, certifications, physical limitations).
- When family loans or contingent personal‑injury proceeds affect division, create clear stipulations or reserve specific remedies to avoid appellate reversal.
- Rule 23 designation: decision is non‑precedential except in limited circumstances.