In re Marriage of Singleton

Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 3/31/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary: <h3>Case Summary</h3> <strong>Case Citation:</strong> 2025 IL App (1st) 231100 -U<br> <strong>Date:</strong> March 31, 2025<br> <strong>Case Number:</strong> No. 1-23-1100<br> <h3>Parties</h3> <stron...

Full Case Summary

Case Summary

Case Citation: 2025 IL App (1st) 231100 -U
Date: March 31, 2025
Case Number: No. 1-23-1100

Parties

Petitioner: Victoria Singleton
Respondent: Michael Singleton

Court Information

Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Circuit Court: Cook County
Judge: Honorable Gregory E. Ahern

Background

Following a bench trial initiated by Victoria Singleton for marriage dissolution against Michael Singleton, the circuit court made several determinations regarding asset distribution and child support. Michael appealed, challenging the classification of his deferred compensation plan and the court's asset valuation approach.

Judgment Overview

The Appellate Court affirmed the valuation date for the deferred compensation plan and upheld the division of marital assets. The court noted that while Victoria's valuation of the marital residence and child support issues were affirmed, the previous ruling regarding Michael's non-marital interest necessitated revision and remand for clarifications.

Asset Distribution and Findings

- **Marital Asset Valuation:** The court validated Victoria’s property valuation and identified Michael’s salary, including pension contributions. - **Retirement Accounts:** The court distinguished non-marital property related to parts of Michael's retirement accounts, indicating marital and non-marital proportions based on employment history. - **Debts:** Victoria was assigned a substantial tax debt, impacted by the couple's separate tax filings. A debt repayment of $68,490.36 was imposed on Michael, allocated from his marital share.

Child Support and Expenses

Child support for their son, M.S., was addressed with the court reserving rights on further obligations. Both parties were equally responsible for shared childcare expenses, while specific tuition payments were assigned to Michael.

Appeal Process and Court Findings

Michael's appeal argued inconsistencies in asset valuation and disputed calculations used for child support. The appellate court agreed some claims lacked sufficient documentation, complicating the review process. Nevertheless, it found that Michael's claims regarding the valuation date were valid, mandating the lower court to ensure consistency as emphasized in related prior rulings.

Conclusion

The Court affirmed parts of the lower court's judgment but remanded for precise clarifications on the non-marital interests and equitable distribution of marital assets, confirming that judicial discretion must adhere to statutory guidelines in property division.

Download PDF Opinion Ask AI About This Case

Ask AI About This Case

Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Singleton? Ask our AI assistant below.