In re Marriage of Romano, 2012 IL App (2d) 91339

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Romano, 2012 IL App (2d) 091339 (Ill. App. Ct. Mar. 21, 2012).
- Petitioner‑Appellee / Cross‑Appellant: Daniel Romano. Respondent‑Appellant / Cross‑Appellee: Cynthia Romano.

2) Key legal issues
- Classification of assets transferred into/out of three irrevocable grantor trusts and interests in family LLCs (marital vs. nonmarital).
- Whether ~ $6.43 million in “missing funds” should be treated as marital property.
- Whether transfers constituted dissipation or a fraud on the marital estate.
- Whether the trial court properly awarded maintenance and substituted maintenance for child support (and whether that violated statutory modification rights).
- Whether the property division and treatment of predistributed assets (attorney‑fee credits) were equitable.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s property classifications and its rejection of claims for dissipation and fraud on marital rights.
- The court vacated the maintenance award (a $15,000/month award tied to a trial‑court letter that also provided for $0 child support) and remanded for recalculation of maintenance and child support because the trial court’s approach interfered with the petitioner’s statutory right to seek modification of child support.
- Overall: affirmed in part, vacated in part, remanded.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Factual findings reviewed under the manifest‑weight standard: the appellate court concluded the trial court’s classifications were supported by evidence and not against the manifest weight. The record showed the transfers into the DMR trusts were part of a multi‑member family estate plan with contemporaneous documentation (promissory note, GRAT structure, contribution agreements, redemptions) and legitimate tax/estate objectives, rather than unilateral cloaking of marital assets.
- The “missing funds” claim failed because Cynthia did not adequately trace or prove that the identified sums remained available marital assets; testimony and documents accounted for the dispositions (including funding of redemptions and trust obligations).
- Dissipation and fraud claims require proof that transfers were made for a nonmarital purpose (personal use) or with intent to defeat a spouse’s marital rights; the evidence did not establish such intent or waste.
- The maintenance/child‑support problem: the trial court’s letter indicating it would award maintenance of $15,000/month while setting child support at $0 on reconsideration effectively deprived the petitioner of statutory rights to seek modification of child support — a legal error requiring remand for proper determination.

5) Practice implications
- Estate‑planning transfers among family members, when documented and reciprocal, will often survive marital‑property attacks—so litigants challenging such transfers must trace funds and prove intent to defeat marital rights.
- Preserve detailed transactional records and contemporaneous agreements when family entities are restructured.
- When litigating maintenance and child support, courts must respect statutory modification rights; judges and counsel should avoid informal letters or orders that effectively convert support characterizations without affording statutory rights to modification or reconsideration.
- Seek specific findings on tracing, intent, and valuation; request express accounting for predistributions or attorney‑fee credits to avoid re‑litigation on remand.