In re Marriage of Sawyer
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 9/25/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case</h3>
<strong>In re Marriage of Toni Brooke Sawyer and Shawn Aaron Sawyer</strong><br>
No. 5-24-0481 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., 2025)
<h3>Procedural History</h3>
Petitioner Toni Sawyer filed ...
Full Case Summary
Case
In re Marriage of Toni Brooke Sawyer and Shawn Aaron SawyerNo. 5-24-0481 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., 2025)
Procedural History
Petitioner Toni Sawyer filed for dissolution Sept. 28, 2022; the Coles County circuit court entered a judgment of dissolution on Oct. 16, 2023. Shawn Sawyer moved to reconsider (denied Mar. 5, 2024) and appealed (timely Apr. 3, 2024).Issues on Appeal
Whether the circuit court erred in (1) characterizing disputed real estate as marital property, (2) treating Toni’s $29,500 payments to Shawn’s ex‑wife’s bankruptcy trustee as a loan rather than a gift, and (3) admitting Toni’s lay testimony on property values.Holding / Disposition
The appellate panel affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in all respects. Justice Sholar delivered the judgment; Presiding Justice McHaney concurred. Justice Vaughan concurred in part and dissented in part.Key Facts
- Shawn and his then‑wife Jennifer acquired multiple properties prior to Shawn’s relationship with Toni; Jennifer later quitclaimed interests to Shawn. Many quitclaims were executed/recorded Nov. 4–9, 2021—during Toni and Shawn’s marriage (they entered a civil union Oct. 10, 2018 and married July 13, 2019). - Toni wrote four checks totaling $29,500 payable to Jennifer’s bankruptcy trustee in Nov. 2021 to preserve Shawn’s interests; Toni testified funds were nonmarital and constituted a loan to Shawn, to be repaid into her savings account. - Toni and Shawn acquired additional real estate during the marriage (e.g., 408 College St, 409 Main St, Lot PIN #11-0-02080-000). Toni testified she made mortgage payments and performed improvements on the marital residence.Property Division & Valuation
- The court classified the disputed assets as marital property under 750 ILCS 5/503(b) and (d), awarded 408 College to Toni (value $35,000), awarded various other parcels to Shawn, and allocated equity with offsets. - Marital-home valuation: $180,000 (Zillow estimate excluded as hearsay; court relied on purchase price, improvements, and market trends). - Specific calculations included: 10365 CR 300 (Lerna) — $62,000 equity; Toni reimbursed $29,500 from that equity and the remaining $32,500 split equally, requiring Shawn to pay Toni an additional $16,250 (so Shawn’s total payment to Toni for that property = $45,750) and the property awarded to Shawn subject to that payment. Other one‑third reimbursements owed by Shawn to Toni (examples listed in the judgment) total $38,433.32.Reasoning — Majority
- Property characterization: Under the statutory presumption that post‑marriage acquisitions are marital, and given Toni’s financial and sweat‑equity contributions and that equity accrued during the marriage, the trial court’s classification and division were reasonable and not an abuse of discretion. - Loan characterization: The record (Toni’s testimony, exhibits showing direct payments to the trustee, and lack of donative intent) supported the trial court’s finding that the $29,500 payments were a loan leading to reimbursement from the marital estate. The majority found appellants’ briefing inadequate to overturn that factual finding. - Valuation testimony: Owner lay opinion was admissible; Toni was qualified by ownership, knowledge of purchase price, improvements, appraisals/realtor input, assessor data, and discovery responses. Cross‑examination, not exclusion, addresses probative weight.Standards Applied
- Property allocation: reviewed for abuse of discretion. - Factual findings: manifest‑weight or abuse‑of‑discretion standards as applicable. - Statutory authorities: 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1), 503(d). Case law cited for owner valuation and burdens of proof.Concurrence/Dissent (Justice Vaughan)
- Agrees with majority on valuation and most property classifications. - Dissents as to characterization of the $29,500 payments: would hold the payments were gifts (invoking the presumption that transfers between spouses are gifts once married/civilly united) because Toni produced only her own testimony, no written loan agreement or security, and failed to trace funds as nonmarital. The dissent would vacate the loan finding, eliminate Shawn’s obligation to repay $29,500, and affirm the balance of the order. The dissent also noted potential Frauds Act and commingling/tracing problems not resolved in the record.Additional Notes
- Appellate panel criticized Shawn’s briefing as deficient (failure to present developed arguments or controlling authority). - The order is filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is non‑precedential except as Rule 23(e)(1) permits. The opinion may be amended or corrected before any petition for rehearing is resolved.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Sawyer? Ask our AI assistant below.