In re Marriage of Reed, 2023 IL App (1st) 220949‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Reed, No. 1‑22‑0949, 2023 IL App (1st) 220949‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. Dec. 22, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Sonya Y. Reed. Respondent‑Appellee: Vernon D. Reed.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in classifying certain real property (Chicago Heights house) as nonmarital.
- Whether the court properly refused to find dissipation of marital assets based on substantial cash withdrawals and transfers.
- Whether the overall marital‑estate distribution (including award of the Matteson homestead equity and allocation of checking‑account balances) was fair and supported by the record.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed the circuit court in two limited respects relating to dissipation and the marital distribution and remanded for a limited redistribution of the specified assets. (The Rule 23 order does not set out full precedential analysis; it vacates portions of the property/dissipation rulings and sends the matter back for redistribution consistent with the opinion.)

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The trial court relied on minimal documentary proof (a trust deed from 2017 and limited testimony) to characterize the Chicago Heights property as inherited/nonmarital. The appellate decision found the trial court’s treatment of certain assets and its rejection of dissipation claims insufficiently supported by the record.
- On dissipation, the record showed substantial cash withdrawals, transfers, and spending (including gambling) during the marriage and after separation; the trial court declined to find dissipation in large part because it could not trace expenditures back to the alleged breakdown period (it rejected going back to 2015). The appellate court concluded the trial court’s findings on dissipation and the resulting impact on asset allocation could not stand without further proceedings.
- Because the trial court’s classification and dissipation determinations affected distribution (notably the award of homestead equity to Vernon and allocation of checking‑account balances), the appellate court ordered a remand for limited redistribution.

5) Practice implications for family practitioners
- Proof burden: litigants seeking nonmarital classification or claiming dissipation must present clear documentary tracing (deeds, trust instruments, bank records, cancelled checks, ledgers) and avoid relying on bare testimony.
- Dissipation claims require contemporaneous tracing of funds to dissipation conduct and a demonstration that expenditures were not for legitimate marital purposes; preserve and develop bank records and third‑party payment evidence.
- Homestead waivers and informal oral agreements are risky if unsupported by contemporaneous documentation; courts will weigh credibility but may remand if findings lack evidentiary support.
- When asset classification/dissipation are dispositive, request explicit written findings and consider targeted post‑trial motions to preserve appellate review.