In re Marriage of Romero, 2021 IL App (4th) 200326-U

In re Marriage of Romero, 2021 IL App (4th) 200326‑U

1) Case & citation
- In re Marriage of Lisa Romero and John B. Levold, No. 4‑20‑0326, 2021 IL App (4th) 200326‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Sept. 14, 2021) (Rule 23 order).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether rental income from petitioner’s pre‑marital property (409 Irvine) is marital or nonmarital (i.e., whether income is “attributable to the personal efforts” of a spouse).
- Whether respondent’s Roth IRA and State Universities Retirement System (SURS) account are marital or nonmarital.
- Valuation of the marital residence and vehicles.
- Whether respondent is entitled to credits/reimbursement for his efforts on nonmarital property and whether petitioner should be charged for using nonmarital rental income to pay marital debt.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Reversed and remanded as to (a) the trial court’s classification of the rental income from 409 Irvine and (b) the classification of respondent’s Roth IRA.
- The court affirmed the trial court on other issues (including classification of the SURS account, valuations of the marital residence and vehicles, and most valuation/contention issues).

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court emphasized the statutory framework: income from a nonmarital asset is nonmarital only if it is not attributable to a spouse’s personal efforts; the party asserting nonmarital character bears the burden of proof.
- The trial court’s reasoning about “attributable” personal effort was deemed ambiguous and insufficiently supported with regard to the rental income; the appellate court found error in the trial court’s classification and remanded for further consideration (including credits/reimbursements that flow from reclassification).
- For the Roth IRA, the appellate court found the trial court erred in classifying it marital given the limited evidentiary record showing pre‑marriage creation and lack of contributions during marriage; that classification required renewed consideration on remand.
- The appellate court upheld the trial court’s valuations where the court had considered competing expert evidence and rejected unverified online estimates.

5) Practice implications
- Document timing and source of contributions to retirement accounts and preserve records proving pre‑marital funding; sparse testimony can be fatal to a classification claim.
- When asserting rental income from a premarital asset is nonmarital, present clear proof about whether and to what extent income was generated by personal effort (who managed tenants, repairs, rent receipts, improvements, and maintenance).
- Produce contemporaneous accounting (rent ledgers, separate accounts) and records of use of proceeds (e.g., paying marital debt) to support credits/reimbursement claims.
- Expert valuations win when methodology is explained; courts give little weight to unexplained online estimates.
- Expect remand for recalculation if reclassification of assets/income materially affects the equitable division.