In re Marriage of Storm, 2020 IL App (5th) 190155-U

In re Marriage of Storm, 2020 IL App (5th) 190155‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Storm, No. 5‑19‑0155 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Oct. 14, 2020) (Rule 23/non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Tanya S. Storm (n/k/a Tanya S. Kunkel). Respondent‑Appellant: Joshua W. Storm.
- Trial court: Circuit Court of Bond County, No. 16‑D‑18 (Judge Ronald R. Slemer).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing the sole marital asset — Joshua’s workers’ compensation settlement (net ≈ $28,392.47) — equally between the parties under section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d)).

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by equally dividing the workers’ compensation proceeds.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: division of marital property is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- The parties stipulated the workers’ compensation settlement was marital property and was the only marital asset. Trial court considered the statutory factors in section 503(d) (income, needs, custodial responsibilities, contributions to the marriage, etc.).
- Relevant facts supporting the court’s division: Tanya was the primary custodial parent, low income (Goodwill employment), living with her father and shouldering child‑related expenses; Joshua had substantial historical debts, limited current income, ongoing substance‑related issues, and little child support/parenting involvement after July 2017. Joshua sought allocation of the entire settlement to pay debts and attorney fees; Tanya argued for a greater share due to custodial burden.
- The appellate court found the record contained sufficient factual support for the trial court’s balancing of §503(d) factors and that an equal split was within the trial court’s wide discretion given the parties’ circumstances. The decision emphasizes that competing needs and debts do not compel a particular mathematical split where the trial court’s factual findings justify the division.

5) Practice implications
- Workers’ compensation proceeds can constitute divisible marital property; litigants should not assume such proceeds are automatically exempt from division.
- When the marital estate is minimal, courts have broad discretion and may order an equal split when §503(d) factors reasonably balance each spouse’s needs and contributions.
- To prevail on claims for a disproportionate share, counsel must develop a clear, documented §503(d) record (income, expenses, custodial costs, purpose of settlement proceeds, debts, attorney fee requests). Provide contemporaneous accounting of settlement net proceeds and tie proposed allocation to concrete needs (e.g., ongoing medical care, future lost wages).
- Note Rule 23 status: this appellate order is non‑precedential and may not be cited as binding authority except in limited circumstances.