In re Marriage of Springer
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 9/25/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case</h3>
<strong>In re Marriage of Angela Springer and Brett Alan Springer</strong>, 2025 IL App (5th) 220378‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Boie, J., delivered Sept. 11, 2025; Cates & Barberis, JJ...
Full Case Summary
Case
In re Marriage of Angela Springer and Brett Alan Springer, 2025 IL App (5th) 220378‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Boie, J., delivered Sept. 11, 2025; Cates & Barberis, JJ., concurring). Appeal from a supplemental order to a judgment for dissolution entered in Vermilion County (Judge Derek J. Girton). Filed as a non‑precedential Rule 23 order; text may be corrected pending rehearing.Procedural posture
Appeal by respondent Brett Springer from the trial court’s supplemental dissolution order addressing permanent child support, asset division (mutual fund and a Nationwide annuity), allocation of a joint checking account (and an asserted dissipation), and multiple contempt findings based on petitioner Angela Springer’s fourth–sixth petitions for rule to show cause.Issues presented
- Whether the trial court erred in calculating permanent child support. - Whether the respondent was entitled to relief for alleged dissipation from the joint checking account. - Whether the mutual fund and the Nationwide annuity were properly classified as marital property. - Whether contempt judgments based on the fourth, fifth, and sixth petitions were valid.Holdings (concise)
- Child support: Affirmed. The court’s $1,430/month award (retroactive to Aug. 1, 2021) was supported by evidence (pay stubs, financial affidavit) and within the trial court’s discretion under the statutory formula (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1.5)). - Dissipation / joint checking account: Affirmed. The respondent forfeited any dissipation claim by failing to file the statutorily required written notice of intent to claim dissipation (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)), so the trial court properly declined relief. - Mutual fund and Nationwide annuity: Affirmed. The trial court did not err in treating the disputed mutual fund (joint‑titled since 2005/2017 records) as marital property under the presumption that co‑ownership is marital unless rebutted by clear and convincing evidence; the annuity was also treated as marital after the court excluded late‑disclosed evidence that it was nonmarital (trial‑by‑ambush/discovery prejudice). - Contempt judgments: Reversed and remanded. The fourth, fifth, and sixth petitions (and attendant rule(s) to show cause) failed to give adequate notice distinguishing civil (indirect) versus criminal contempt; because those procedural protections were lacking, the contempt orders tied to those petitions were invalid. The reversal is without prejudice to refiling consistent with the opinion.Key reasoning points
- Child support: Appellate deference to credibility and income findings; trial court relied on contemporaneous paystubs and the parties’ submitted affidavits rather than a prior‑year W‑2 the respondent belatedly urged. - Dissipation: Statutory notice requirement is mandatory and was not satisfied, resulting in forfeiture of the dissipation theory. - Asset classification: Where accounts were put in joint tenancy and the respondent failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence a nonmarital origin or conditional gift, the presumption of marital property applied; late discovery and a sudden mid‑trial change of position regarding the annuity justified exclusion of the new evidence to avoid prejudice. - Contempt: Because the petitions and issued rule(s) failed to specify the nature of contempt and thereby did not afford constitutionally adequate notice and procedural protections, the indirect‑civil contempt findings tied to those petitions could not stand—even though the respondent later paid the assessed sums (purged the contempt), the court reversed on the procedural defect and remanded for further proceedings.Disposition
Affirmed in part (permanent child support, distribution of joint checking account, classification of the mutual fund and annuity); reversed in part (contempt judgments on the 4th–6th petitions) and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Springer? Ask our AI assistant below.