In re Marriage of Serdar, 2019 IL App (3d) 170821-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Serdar, 2019 IL App (3d) 170821-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Aug. 21, 2019) (Rule 23 order; not for citation except as allowed). Petitioner-Appellee: Joan Serdar. Respondent-Appellant/Cross-Appellee: Richard Serdar. Cross-Appellant: Michael D. Canulli (attorney).

- Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s factual findings (income, dissipation, support obligation) were proper and supported by the evidence.
- Proper calculation of child support and whether maintenance was warranted.
- Whether funds withdrawn from marital accounts constituted dissipation and the appropriate remedy.
- Whether the attorney’s petitions for interim/prospective fees and contribution were properly denied.

- Holding / outcome
The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court. Material rulings upheld include: Richard’s annual income found to be $67,606; child support ordered at $969/month; Richard denied maintenance; Richard ordered to pay half of the dissipated funds ($23,394.50); requirement that Richard contribute to a trust fund for the children; denial of Canulli’s petitions for attorney fees.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The appellate court deferred to the trial court on credibility and fact-intensive determinations, finding the evidence supported the income finding and the child-support calculation.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s finding of dissipation (withdrawal/use of marital funds for nonmarital purposes) and the remedial allocation—ordering Richard to repay half the amount identified as dissipated—because the trial court’s factual evaluation and equitable apportionment were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The denial of maintenance and of attorney-fee relief (both interim/prospective and contribution petitions) was affirmed as within the trial court’s discretion given the parties’ financial circumstances and record; procedural failures (e.g., failure to timely file amended fee petitions and the court’s grant of joinder of temporary issues to the final trial) and lack of compelling proof of entitlement weighed against fee awards.

- Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Preserve and document income sources (including cash receipts and job bids); lack of contemporaneous records weakens claims of undisclosed income.
- Treat HELOC withdrawals and large transfers as potentially dissipative — be prepared to trace and justify expenditures.
- Timely and properly plead attorney-fee requests and follow court-ordered filing deadlines; procedural defects can be fatal to fee petitions.
- Credibility calls and factual disputes (income, work history, cash jobs) will likely be resolved at trial; appellate review is deferential.
- Remember this is a Rule 23 unpublished decision and has limited precedential value.