In re Marriage of Schiffbauer, 2023 IL App (3d) 220393-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Schiffbauer, 2023 IL App (3d) 220393-U (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 3, 2023) (Rule 23 order; nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee/Cross‑Appellant: Rita Schiffbauer. Respondent‑Appellant/Cross‑Appellee: Doug Schiffbauer.

2. Key legal issues
- Classification: whether two disputed farm parcels (a 160‑acre parcel purchased in 2001 and a 120‑acre parcel purchased in 1983) were marital or nonmarital property.
- Dissipation: whether payments to the parties’ son, Kirby, for farming services and related farm transactions (sales/trades of equipment to Kirby) constituted dissipation of marital assets.
- Remedy mechanics: whether the trial court properly fashioned payment of the dissipation award (assignment of an installment contract).

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The trial court’s finding that the 160‑acre parcel was Rita’s nonmarital property was against the manifest weight of the evidence — reversal on that classification.
- The trial court’s finding that the 120‑acre parcel was Doug’s nonmarital property was affirmed.
- The trial court’s conclusion that payments to Kirby for farming were not dissipation was not against the manifest weight of the evidence — affirmed.
- The court remanded for reconsideration of the property division (because reclassification affects the split) and for reconsideration of the method of satisfying the dissipation award (assignment/payment stream).

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court reiterated the presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital, and that a party seeking nonmarital characterization must overcome that presumption by clear and convincing evidence (including adequate tracing to nonmarital source or showing transmutation exceptions).
- For the 160‑acre parcel, the appellate panel found the evidentiary record did not support the clear‑and‑convincing finding that Rita acquired it with nonmarital funds or solely via nonmarital collateral; marital use, shared mortgage execution, payment of taxes with marital funds, and Doug’s farming of the land undermined the trial court’s nonmarital classification.
- For the 120‑acre parcel, pre‑marriage purchase supported nonmarital status despite post‑marriage payments or note rewrites.
- On dissipation, the court required evidence payments were wasteful, unnecessary, or for the spouse’s benefit alone. Payment to Kirby was supported by testimony of his education, agreed involvement, contribution to debts and operations (particularly during Doug’s 2018 incapacity), and absence of proof of excessive or unnecessary payments.

5. Practice implications
- When litigating classification of property acquired during marriage, attorneys must produce clear, specific tracing evidence (source of funds, use of collateral, contemporaneous documents) to overcome marital presumption; mere title or isolated nonmarital transfers are often insufficient.
- Claims of dissipation against payments to family members require proof that payments were excessive, unnecessary, or diverted for a spouse’s sole benefit; contemporaneous agreements, invoices, hours/rates, and evidence of substitutions/benefits to the marital enterprise are critical.
- Where reclassification could change the overall distribution, present alternative division calculations and valuation scenarios; challenge or support proposed mechanisms for satisfying dissipation awards (assignment vs. lump sum) because appellate courts will scrutinize remedy mechanics on remand.