In re Marriage of Ries, 2019 IL App (2d) 180706-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Ries, 2019 IL App (2d) 180706-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Sept. 11, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner-Appellee: Stacey A. Ries. Respondent-Appellant: Michael J. Ries.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly (a) required respondent to pay half of 2016–2017 real estate taxes and reduced his equity share in the marital residence to reimburse petitioner for interim children’s expenses and mortgage payments, and (b) ordered him to pay half of a credit‑card debt connected to a tax payment.
2. Whether the trial court erred in imputing income to respondent, calculating and deviating from statutory maintenance guidelines, and making maintenance reviewable.
3. Whether the court should have considered petitioner’s bonus income in the maintenance analysis.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s rulings (taxes, residence equity adjustment, credit‑card liability split, denial of interim attorney‑fee relief, imputation of income, downward deviation from maintenance guidelines, and making maintenance reviewable). It reversed in part and remanded because the trial court failed to consider petitioner’s bonus income when calculating maintenance.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Property/taxes/debt: The court applied deferential review to the trial court’s factual determinations about interim expenses and the origin of debt; requiring respondent to pay half of the 2016–2017 taxes and share credit‑card liability was within the trial court’s discretion given the evidence and the parties’ allocation of marital obligations during pendency.
- Imputation of income: The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imputing income to respondent where evidence (bank/QuickBooks information, tax filings, and other indicia of income/receipts) supported a finding that respondent had the capacity to earn more than reported.
- Maintenance: Deviation below guideline amounts and making maintenance reviewable were permitted based on case‑specific factors. However, omission of petitioner’s documented bonus income was reversible error because the court must consider all relevant income streams when determining maintenance obligations under the statute.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Present comprehensive, documented income evidence (W‑2s, 1099s, bonuses, bank deposits, QuickBooks) — courts will impute income when the record suggests underreporting.
- When seeking maintenance, ensure the trial court has evidence of all variable compensation (bonuses, commissions); failure to place such income in evidence can require remand.
- Preserve a clear record tying interim expenditures, tax liability, or credit‑card charges to marital obligations when seeking reimbursement or equitable adjustments to property awards.
- Be prepared to argue and support deviations from maintenance guidelines with specific factual and statutory factors; courts have discretion but must base decisions on the record.