In re Marriage of Stephens
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 3/20/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3>Case Information</h3>
<strong>Case Name:</strong> In re the Marriage of Myra Stephens
<strong>Case Number:</strong> 2025 IL App (1st) 242519-U
<strong>Date Filed:</strong> March 20, 2025
<st...
Full Case Summary
Case Information
Case Name: In re the Marriage of Myra Stephens Case Number: 2025 IL App (1st) 242519-U Date Filed: March 20, 2025 Court: Appellate Court of Illinois, First DistrictJudicial Overview
Judges: Presiding Justice Rochford, Justices Hoffman and Ocasio Initial Court: Circuit Court of Cook County Judge: Honorable Bradley TrowbridgeBackground and Marriage Overview
Petitioner Myra Stephens filed for dissolution of marriage from Respondent Bradford Stephens after their marriage on June 10, 2007. They have one child. Petitioner operates a business, Beakers & Bottles, earning $138,169 in 2023, while Respondent is a software engineer at ServiceTitan with a salary of $300,000, including significant restricted stock units (RSUs).Case Summary
Petitioner sought an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) on August 26, 2024, to prevent Respondent from liquidating his retirement accounts or incurring additional debt related to the marital estate. The court initially granted the TRO but later erroneously converted it into a preliminary injunction without holding the necessary evidentiary hearing, which was contested by the Respondent. On December 9, 2024, the court permitted an injunction but failed to conduct any swearing of witnesses or admission of exhibits.Allegations of Financial Misconduct
Petitioner accused Respondent of depleting marital assets, including withdrawing funds from retirement accounts and taking predatory loans, all while purportedly managing his RSUs improperly. Respondent contested these claims, arguing that withdrawals were necessary for legal expenses and disputing the valuation of his RSUs.Legal Proceedings
Throughout the proceedings, Respondent argued against the validity of the claims for injunctive relief, emphasizing that Petitioner had not established irreparable harm or an absence of adequate legal remedies. The court ultimately vacated the December 9, 2024, order regarding the preliminary injunction, remanding the case for an immediate evidentiary hearing to adequately address the contested issues surrounding the marital estate.Next Steps
The case is set for immediate evidentiary hearing to resolve the outstanding disputes regarding temporary restraining orders and the valuation of RSUs and the marital estate, ensuring proper legal procedures are followed moving forward.Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Stephens? Ask our AI assistant below.