In re Marriage of Schreiber, 2019 IL App (1st) 170363-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Schreiber, No. 1-17-3063, 2019 IL App (1st) 170363‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Sept. 30, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑appellant: Rodd M. Schreiber. Respondent‑appellee: Gay R. Schreiber.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether maintenance should terminate based on a claimed de facto remarriage/cohabitation.
2. Whether evidence of the parties’ pre‑dissolution lifestyle was admissible on a maintenance review.
3. Whether the trial court erred in awarding permanent (indefinite) maintenance and in the amount awarded.
4. Whether the court miscalculated maintenance by using an incorrect tax rate.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it upheld the trial court’s factual findings (including that Gay is not in a de facto marriage and that she requires maintenance to maintain the marital standard of living) and the court’s evidentiary rulings, but reversed the final maintenance calculation and remanded for recalculation of both ongoing and retroactive maintenance because the trial court applied an incorrect tax rate. The trial court had awarded Gay permanent maintenance of $23,320/month (from a prior MSA that provided $21,000/month for four years subject to review).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied the statutory factors in 750 ILCS 5/504 and 5/510(a)(5). It found (1) a long‑term marriage supporting indefinite maintenance, (2) a significant disparity in incomes and asset accumulation (Rodd’s post‑decree wealth far outpaced Gay’s), (3) Gay’s ongoing employment but limited earning capacity relative to Rodd, and (4) a high marital standard of living. The trial court carefully analyzed pre‑decree lifestyle and adjusted particular expense categories (excluding a paid‑off mortgage, reducing certain child‑related expenses, but allowing housekeeper, clothing, transportation, grooming, etc.). On de facto marriage, the court emphasized lack of financial interdependence (no joint assets, no shared bills, separate residences, no estate planning, etc.) and concluded the relationship was long‑term dating rather than a spousal partnership. The only legal error identified on appeal was the use of an incorrect tax rate affecting the maintenance computation.

- Practice implications for counsel
- Preserve and develop detailed evidence on (a) financial interdependence (or lack thereof) when alleging de facto remarriage, (b) pre‑dissolution standard of living, and (c) current realistic earning capacity and expenses. Courts will weigh granular lifestyle items and may exclude or adjust items (e.g., paid‑off mortgage, child‑related costs).
- Anticipate that MSA maintenance terms do not preclude a statutory review; evidence of lifestyle remains relevant.
- When arguing or calculating maintenance, verify tax assumptions and rates—clerical/calculation errors can produce a remand even if underlying findings stand.
- Note: decision is Rule 23 (non‑precedential).