In re Marriage of Tarbouche, 2023 IL App (1st) 211145-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Tarbouche, 2023 IL App (1st) 211145-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Dec. 29, 2023) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Nawara Tarbouche. Respondent‑Appellant: Fawaz (Frank) Ennab.

- Key legal issues
1. Proper calculation and imputation of wife’s income for maintenance.
2. Authority to award prospective and retroactive maintenance (including source/payment).
3. Whether a $145,000 transfer constituted income for maintenance purposes.
4. Whether husband must reimburse wife for health‑insurance premiums and name her beneficiary on a life insurance policy.
5. Whether the trial court’s finding of dissipation of marital assets complied with the Act’s notice requirements.

- Holding / outcome (short)
The appellate court affirmed most of the trial court’s rulings (maintenance award, reimbursement for health insurance, life‑insurance beneficiary requirement, treatment of the $145,000 transfer, and consideration of wife’s employment history/imputed income). It reversed and remanded on two points: (1) the dissipation finding because the statutory/ procedural notice requirement was not followed; and (2) because the trial court failed to order retroactive maintenance to be paid from the marital estate (requiring remand to correct the remedy).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: the court reviewed factual and discretionary maintenance determinations under abuse‑of‑discretion, and legal/notice defects de novo or for legal error.
- Maintenance/imputation: the court upheld the trial court’s approach to imputing income to the wife (considering her work history and ability to earn) and upheld retroactive maintenance dating to the petition’s filing as within the court’s authority.
- $145,000 transfer: characterized as a gift/transfer to a third party, not income available for maintenance computation.
- Health insurance & life insurance: trial court acted within its equitable powers under the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act to require reimbursement for out‑of‑pocket premiums and to secure maintenance obligations by requiring a life‑insurance beneficiary designation.
- Dissipation/notice: the appellate court found the trial court erred in finding dissipation because the petitioner failed to comply with statutory notice timing; failure to meet notice requirements prejudiced the respondent and necessitated reversal/remand on that issue.
- Remedy formulation: retroactive maintenance was awarded but the court failed to direct that it be paid from marital assets — a material omission requiring remand.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways)
- Preserve and timely serve any dissipation notices required by the Act; failure can forfeit relief.
- When seeking retroactive maintenance, move to specifically direct the source (marital estate or particular assets) to avoid remedial gaps.
- Counsel should document and characterize large transfers (gift vs income) early; tax/form evidence helps.
- Claims for health‑insurance reimbursement and maintenance‑securing life‑insurance orders are routinely sustainable—seek express orders and supporting evidence.
- Treat Rule 23 decisions cautiously (non‑precedential) but useful as persuasive guidance on procedure and remedies.