In re Marriage of Swift, 2021 IL App (2d) 200540-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Swift (Carlene M. DeNotto, f/k/a Carlene M. Swift v. Andrew D. Swift), 2021 IL App (2d) 200540‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. June 18, 2021). (Rule 23(b) order — not precedent.)

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court on remand exceeded the scope of the appellate mandate by making credibility and factual findings.
2. Whether the warehouse used in respondent’s nonmarital business is marital or nonmarital property — i.e., whether respondent proved by clear and convincing evidence that nonmarital funds or an exception (e.g., prior ownership, gift, inheritance) supplied the purchase price.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court acted within the mandate and correctly classified the warehouse as marital property because respondent failed to overcome the statutory presumption with clear and convincing proof that nonmarital funds were used.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Mandate scope: The prior appellate decision vacated only the warehouse classification and remanded with directions to make “specific findings from the evidence presented at trial” about the source of purchase funds. The remand authorized the trial court to review the existing record and make findings; it did not require a new evidentiary hearing. Compliance with the mandate is reviewed de novo.
- Presumption and burden: Property acquired during marriage is presumptively marital; doubts are resolved in favor of marital character. To overcome that presumption, the proponent must prove a statutory exception by clear and convincing evidence.
- Application to facts: The trial court identified the evidence it relied on (1994 option/agreements, a 2009 deed/record showing transfer to Swift Properties, a $465,000 sales figure in the appraisal, and testimony showing Cushioneer did not exercise the option and that corporate and personal funds/accounts were intermingled). No deed or testimony established a Cushioneer-to-Swift Properties transfer funded by nonmarital money or any clear tracing of nonmarital funds. The court reasonably concluded the record did not meet the high burden to establish nonmarital status.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve and introduce clear chain‑of‑title and funding evidence at trial (closing statements, checks, escrow records, corporate minutes, contemporaneous transfer documents).
- Where a remand is limited to reviewing the existing record, expect the trial court to make findings from that record; seek a new evidentiary hearing on remand only if the appellate mandate permits.
- To defend a claim of nonmarital acquisition, develop unambiguous documentary proof and avoid commingling corporate and personal finances; contemporaneous leases/agreements and formal corporate actions strengthen nonmarital claims.
- Ensure the trial record on appeal contains the documents and testimony necessary for tracing funds; appellate courts may remand rather than resolve gaps in evidence.