In re Marriage of Szady, 2019 IL App (2d) 160930‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Szady, No. 2‑16‑0930 (2d Dist. Jan. 16, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Stephanie E. Szady. Respondent‑Appellee: Kenneth J. Szady.

2) Key legal issues
- What constitutes “income” for maintenance under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/504, 505) — specifically whether restricted equity/BGC stock awards, sales proceeds and related deposits are properly included in gross income.
- Proper evidentiary sources to determine income (tax returns, bank deposits, brokerage statements) and whether nonrecurring payments can be excluded.
- Standard of review: de novo for statutory construction of “income”; abuse of discretion for maintenance amount.

3) Holding / outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court erred in calculating Kenneth’s income for maintenance by: (1) excluding BGC stock awards as “nonrecurring”; (2) overrelying on tax returns; and (3) disregarding bank deposit evidence. Remand for further proceedings to properly determine income.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The court applied Illinois precedent (notably Rogers) that “income” is broad — gains/benefits that enhance wealth and includes irregular or one‑time payments unless properly analyzed. The Act’s “all income from all sources” language requires inclusion of items that qualify as income; nonrecurring character alone does not permit automatic exclusion.
- Trial court found discrete credibility problems but nonetheless excluded stock awards based on their discretionary nature without adequately treating proceeds/liquidations as income. Appellate court emphasized that liquidation of stock that produced cash deposits and was used for living/legal expenses is the type of gain the statute contemplates.
- The trial court also improperly prioritized audited tax returns and discounted contemporaneous bank and brokerage deposit evidence that could demonstrate actual receipts. The appellate court held evidentiary weight must be assigned consistent with statutory scope and recorded evidence.

5) Practice implications for attorneys
- Develop a comprehensive income record beyond tax returns: bank deposits, brokerage statements, grants/award documents, distribution/transfer records, and correspondence with payors.
- When funds derive from equity awards or asset liquidations, treat proceeds as income unless clear, convincing evidence shows they are nonincome (e.g., return of capital).
- Anticipate and rebut arguments that discrete awards are “nonrecurring” by showing history, customary payouts, dividends, or usage to meet living/support obligations.
- Use forensic accounting to reconcile transfers/accounts and avoid double‑counting; preserve detailed findings at trial to facilitate appellate review (de novo review available on statutory income issues).