In re Marriage of Scardino, 2021 IL App (2d) 200789-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Scardino, 2021 IL App (2d) 200789-U (2d Dist. Sept. 14, 2021).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Elizabeth M. Scardino (now Elizabeth Franko). Respondent-Appellant: Joseph Scardino.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) denying termination but reducing ongoing maintenance, (b) imputing income to both parties, and (c) treating unexplained cash deposits in the payee’s bank account as income for maintenance-calculation purposes.
- Which version of the maintenance statute applied and correct application of the statutory cap (40%) in calculating maintenance.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. Trial court did not abuse its discretion. Maintenance was reduced (not terminated) to $722/month effective January 2021. Contempt findings (for unrelated payment defaults) were not challenged on appeal.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: awards of maintenance and imputations of income are reviewed for abuse of discretion; appellant bears burden to show arbitrariness or legal error.
- Credibility and documentary evidence: the trial court found the husband’s testimony (about limited work capacity and low earnings) not fully credible and supported imputation. Although husband claimed severe work limitations, he admitted he could work 2–3 hours/day at $90/hour; court imputed $30,000/year from his business plus pension/Social Security, resulting in gross annual income used for the formula.
- Payee’s income: bank records produced after the initial hearing showed unexplained cash deposits averaging about $1,100/month (~$13,200/year). The court treated those deposits as income and adjusted the payee’s total income upward; the court did not find she had an ownership interest in undisclosed business accounts. Because of the updated income evidence, further imputation beyond the deposits was found unnecessary.
- Statutory application: the court applied the version of the maintenance statute in effect when the modification motion was filed (2018) and corrected an earlier error by applying the 40% cap using gross incomes as required under the statute, leading to the $722/month figure.

5. Practice implications
- Documentary proof is critical: credibility findings will hinge on contemporaneous records (bank statements, pay stubs, medical/work restrictions). Subpoena and timely production of bank records can materially change imputations.
- When seeking modification, quantify earning capacity with specifics (hours, rates, physician restrictions, job searches); vague assertions risk imputation.
- Be mindful which statutory version applies (date of filing) and the correct base (gross vs. net) for 40% cap calculations.
- Reopenings for late-disclosed financials can be granted and may alter maintenance awards.