In re Marriage of Tate, 2019 IL App (2d) 170579-U

1) Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Tate, No. 2-17-0579, 2019 IL App (2d) 170579-U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 4, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Marsha “Tolly” Tate; Respondent-Appellant: Wesley Tate.

2) Key legal issues
- Allocation and valuation of marital assets/liabilities when the marital estate includes large “forgivable loan”/ETP awards that create future taxable income and contingent tax liabilities.
- Whether the trial court properly allocated receivables, tax liabilities, and other assets (and whether omission of specific allocations requires remand).
- Admissibility/timeliness of an expert’s supplemental spending/dissipation report.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding maintenance (amount and formula).
- Whether findings of dissipation were supported and whether the property division was equitable given liquidity disparities.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The appellate court held the maintenance award was not an abuse of discretion and affirmed it.
- The court reversed insofar as the trial court allocated certain assets (and failed to allocate others, including treatment of forgivable ETP loans and related tax consequences) and remanded for proper reallocation of the marital estate.
- Because of the remand, appellant’s broader claim that the division was inequitable was premature.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court emphasized that a proper property distribution must identify and allocate all marital assets and liabilities, including contingent tax obligations that arise from loan-forgiveness compensation structures (ETP/deferred cash awards). Failure to expressly allocate such items and their tax consequences prevents effective appellate review and requires remand.
- The maintenance award was reviewed under the abuse-of-discretion standard; the trial court’s findings (length of marriage, disparity in earning capacity, wife’s limited work history, husband’s substantial compensation) supported a substantial periodic award and a percentage-of-income formula.
- The trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting a supplemental expert report that reduced dissipation figures and was characterized as an update to a timely report.
- On dissipation, the opinion underscores the need for clear tracing and specific findings when large expenditures are alleged.

5) Practice implications (for family law practitioners)
- When ETPs/forgivable awards are involved, litigate and obtain court findings on (a) present valuation, (b) schedule of future forgiveness, (c) resulting taxable income and who bears related tax liabilities, and (d) liquidity implications.
- Insist on itemized written judgments that allocate each asset and liability (including contingent tax exposure) to avoid remandable omissions.
- Preserve challenges to expert updates but recognize courts may admit supplemental reports that reduce claims if they are framed as timely updates.
- For dissipation claims, develop documentary tracing and quantification; seek specific factual findings.
- In cases with large income flows, negotiate or litigate maintenance formulas tied to thresholds/percentages and obtain clear findings supporting amount and duration.