In re Marriage of Stallworth
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 9/2/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case</h3>
<strong>2025 IL App (4th) 250210‑U; No. 4‑25‑0210 — In re Marriage of John Fitzgerald Stallworth (petitioner‑appellant) and Osvaldina Holanda DeSouza (respondent‑appellee).</strong>
<h3...
Full Case Summary
Case
2025 IL App (4th) 250210‑U; No. 4‑25‑0210 — In re Marriage of John Fitzgerald Stallworth (petitioner‑appellant) and Osvaldina Holanda DeSouza (respondent‑appellee).Procedural Posture & Representation
Trial court: Sangamon County, No. 23DN207 (Judge Tawnya L. Frioli). Stallworth filed pro se for dissolution July 18, 2023; bench trial Oct. and Dec. 2024; written judgment Feb. 2025. Appeal: Appellate order filed Aug. 29, 2025 (Steigmann, J.; DeArmond and Vancil, JJ., concurring). Stallworth proceeded pro se on appeal; DeSouza was represented by counsel. The order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).Trial Ruling — Major Financial Orders
The trial court dissolved the marriage and ordered Stallworth to pay DeSouza a one‑time equalization payment of $19,030 within 90 days. That sum incorporated (1) equalization of marital assets and debts, (2) lump‑sum maintenance, and (3) an adjustment for Stallworth’s dissipation of the parties’ 2023 GMC Sierra. The court also allocated attorney fees: an earlier interim award of $3,000, an additional $3,000 against a claimed $15,735 in fees (leaving DeSouza responsible for $9,735).Relevant Financial Findings
- Income disparity: Stallworth (State employment) $129,060; DeSouza (self‑employed aesthetician) $24,000. - Marital assets: bank accounts $5,253; 2023 GMC Sierra equity $30,795.45. - Marital debts: ≈ $36,593.56; net marital position ≈ $545.11 net debt. - Trial court adopted detailed calculations and evidence in a 12‑page written judgment.Dissipation & Credibility Findings
The court found the 2023 GMC Sierra to be marital property that Stallworth dissipated—he traded it for a 2025 Sierra and shipped it to the Dominican Republic. The court discredited Stallworth’s testimony (and Hernandez’s supporting testimony), citing failures to disclose accounts and debts, an unexplained $19,987 flex loan obtained after separation, and late disclosure of the vehicle’s disposition, which thwarted compliance with dissipation notice requirements.Issues Raised on Appeal
Stallworth challenged (1) the dissipation finding regarding the 2023 GMC Sierra; (2) application of law on division of assets/debts and maintenance; and (3) the additional attorney‑fee award. He also contested certain paystub/exhibit notations used in income/maintenance calculations.Record Limitations & Appellate Review
Stallworth did not provide a trial transcript, bystander’s report, or agreed statement of facts. Under Rule 323 and settled authority (Foutch), an appellant bears the burden to supply a sufficient record; absent it, the appellate court presumes the trial court acted correctly and resolves doubts against the appellant. The appellate court found Stallworth’s brief legally deficient (no reasoned analysis or authority for many claims) and that the exhibits he cited lacked the context necessary to refute the trial court’s factual findings.Disposition & Reasoning
Because the trial court’s 12‑page judgment thoroughly set out evidence, findings, and credibility assessments—and because the appellate record was incomplete and Stallworth’s appellate arguments lacked cogent legal support—the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dissolution judgment, including the dissipation finding, equalization payment, and attorney‑fee allocation.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Stallworth? Ask our AI assistant below.