In re Marriage of Sinha, 2021 IL App (2d) 191129

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Sinha, 2021 IL App (2d) 191129. Petitioner-Appellee: Jyoti Sinha; Respondent-Appellant: Mukesh K. Sinha.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether large transfers ($540,000) by wife to relatives in India constituted dissipation of marital assets.
2. Proper date for determining dissipation (when the marriage irretrievably broke down).
3. Whether husband’s income should be imputed for child support calculations.
4. Whether trial court properly found indirect civil contempt for failure to comply with orders (accounting, escrow transfer, child support, daycare/medical contributions, job-search diary).
5. Division of marital property and award (including effect of claimed nonmarital funds commingled).

- Holding / outcome (appellate disposition)
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part, and remanded with directions. (Trial court had: denied most dissipation claims against wife but found husband dissipated $19,068; imputed $125,000 income to husband and ordered child support; awarded 55% of marital estate to wife; denied maintenance; found husband in indirect civil contempt. The Appellate Court modified aspects of that judgment—see full opinion for particulars.)

- Significant legal reasoning (themes and takeaways from the opinion)
- Timing matters: transfers made before the court‑determined date the marriage irretrievably broke down will not be treated as dissipation. Trial courts must make a defensible factual finding identifying the breakup date when dissipation is alleged.
- Burden/evidence: claims of dissipation require specific tracing and proof of depletion for a non‑marital purpose. General assertions or unsubstantiated valuations (e.g., speculative pre‑marriage account growth) are weak.
- Imputation of income: a finding that a parent is voluntarily unemployed/underemployed and imputation is appropriate must rest on evidence of ability and opportunity; appellate review will scrutinize that factual determination.
- Contempt findings: indirect civil contempt requires a clear, unambiguous court order and proof of willful noncompliance; remedies and purge conditions must be clearly articulated.

- Practice implications (brief)
- When alleging dissipation, plead and prove the date of irretrievable breakdown and provide transaction traceability and contemporaneous records.
- Preserve evidence of the source and growth of pre‑marital assets to resist characterization/dissipation claims.
- If seeking imputation, develop evidence of earning history, job opportunities, and efforts (or lack thereof) to obtain employment.
- For contempt motions, ensure orders are clear and service/notice and opportunity to purge are documented; judges will expect specificity as to amounts and remedies.
- Use escrow and detailed accounting orders where cross‑border transfers are possible; obtain forensic tracing early.

For precise appellate holdings and mandated remand actions, consult the full opinion (2021 IL App (2d) 191129).