In re Marriage of Smiley, 2019 IL App (2d) 180976-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Smiley, 2019 IL App (2d) 180976‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 22, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant: Keaton Smiley. Respondent‑Appellee: Sandra Smiley.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court properly calculated guideline maintenance and guideline child support using each party’s base salary rather than their gross annual income (including bonuses, overtime, shift premiums).
2) Whether the trial court’s finding that Keaton dissipated marital funds (≈ $15,703 withdrawn from a 401(k)) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
3) (Related) Whether the trial court made sufficient factual findings when departing from guideline inputs (imputing or discounting income due to shift choices).

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. It held that the trial court erred as a matter of law by using base salaries rather than the parties’ gross incomes to compute guideline maintenance and child support, and remanded for recalculation consistent with the statute. The court affirmed the trial court’s finding of dissipation (not against the manifest weight of the evidence).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court applied de novo statutory construction. Section 504(b‑1)(1)(A) (guideline maintenance) requires using payor’s and payee’s “gross annual income.” Section 504(b‑3) and section 505 define “gross income” as total income from all sources (W‑2 income, bonuses, overtime, shift premiums, absent enumerated exceptions). Because the trial court acknowledged the parties’ 2017 gross earnings (Keaton ≈ $83,079; Sandra ≈ $53,656) but used reduced “base” salaries instead, the calculation conflicted with the statute and was reversible error. The court also noted that while courts may deviate from guidelines, they must state the guideline amount that would have applied and explain the reasons for variance (750 ILCS 5/504(b‑2)(2)). By contrast, the finding that Keaton withdrew marital funds after employment termination and used them for non‑marital purposes was supported by the record; the appellate court found no abuse of discretion or manifest‑weight error.

- Practice implications (bullet points)
- When applying the maintenance formula, use statutory “gross income” (include bonuses, overtime, shift premiums) and apply the 40% combined‑income cap where applicable.
- If imputing or discounting a spouse’s earnings (e.g., voluntary third‑shift overtime), make explicit factual findings tied to section 504(a) factors and state the guideline amount and reasons for any deviation.
- True‑up provisions do not cure initial legal error in applying statutory inputs.
- Preserve clear evidentiary support when claiming dissipation (timing, purpose, reduction of marital estate); courts will defer to fact findings absent manifest weight error.
- Remember this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) decision but is useful authority on correct application of the maintenance statute.