In re Marriage of Trapp, 2022 IL App (3d) 210291‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Trapp, 2022 IL App (3d) 210291‑U (Order filed Nov. 21, 2022, Sup. Ct. R. 23 — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Raymond J. Trapp, Jr. (husband). Respondent/Appellant: Felicia E. Trapp (wife).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in valuing and distributing two closely held businesses (Ray Trapp Electric, Inc. and Trapp Properties, Inc.).
- Whether the trial court properly calculated parties’ income for maintenance and child‑support purposes (including treatment of business distributions, cash on hand, and pandemic‑era funds).
- Whether certain intangible assets (personal goodwill and non‑compete) should be included in business value.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing the businesses and in awarding both businesses to the husband with a cash payment to the wife (modified to reflect increased equity in Trapp Properties).
- The child‑support order was reversed and remanded for recalculation of the husband’s income.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: trial court’s property distribution and valuation decisions reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court emphasized that admissible, competent valuation evidence will support the trial court’s findings.
- Appraiser testimony: Husband’s CPA/appraiser (30‑year business valuation experience) provided valuation reports (asset/net‑asset methods, inspection, reliance on broker opinion and construction costs, tax returns, depreciation schedules). The court found this competent evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s valuation and exclusion of $90,000 in personal goodwill/non‑compete.
- Trapp Properties’ equity: appraiser acknowledged mortgage payoff changes could increase equity; appellate court modified award to reflect such increase. Wife’s challenge failed in part because she produced no competing valuation.
- Income calculation: appellate court found error in child‑support income determination and remanded — trial court must properly account for self‑employed owner compensation, distributions, and nontraditional cash flows.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Valuation strategy: when businesses are at issue, present qualified valuation experts and contemporaneous support (appraisals, broker opinions, tax schedules, loan docs); absent a competing valuation, appellate review will defer to trial fact‑finding.
- Intangibles: be prepared to litigate inclusion/exclusion of goodwill/non‑compete with tailored proof.
- Income for support: carefully develop record on owner compensation vs. distributions, corporate expenses that benefit the owner, pandemic relief funds, and account ownership; request recalculation/hearings when business cashflows change.
- Preservation: challenge valuation methodology and request updated valuations if market conditions (e.g., COVID) materially changed after the valuation date.
- Note: This is a Rule 23 order and nonprecedential except as allowed by the rule.