In re Marriage of Turansick, 2019 IL App (2d) 180918-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Turansick, 2019 IL App (2d) 180918-U. Petitioner-Appellee: Michael Turansick. Respondent-Appellant: Laura Turansick.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly implemented the appellate court’s prior mandate (Turansick I) awarding permanent maintenance.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) determining Laura’s income for maintenance purposes, (b) applying an effective tax rate to gross-up the maintenance award, and (c) calculating the dollar amount needed to maintain the marital standard of living (including lifestyle items such as vacations, horse ownership, new cars).

- Holding / outcome
The Second District affirmed the trial court’s implementation of the prior mandate but held that the trial court abused its discretion in determining the appropriate amount of maintenance. The appellate court affirmed as modified and remanded for recalculation consistent with the opinion and the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The appellate court reiterated that the trial court must determine maintenance based on the statutory factors and the evidentiary record, including credible expert lifestyle analyses. On remand from Turansick I the trial court was bound to consider the experts’ documented range for Laura’s adjusted monthly expenses (approximately $12,800–$15,600 net of taxes).
- The trial court’s factual findings regarding Laura’s income (found to be $38,000/year) and its selection of a 22% effective tax rate were reviewed for abuse of discretion. The opinion faulted the court for accepting demonstrative “additions to lifestyle” without adequate evidentiary support and for relying on experts’ reports in an inconsistent manner (e.g., discounting lifestyle items Schroeder included while accepting others without quantification).
- The court emphasized that lifestyle add-ons (horses, vacations, car amortization) require evidentiary support and that experts’ methodologies (what is embedded in household expenses, inclusion/exclusion of child-related costs, amortization periods, treatment of trade-ins or maintenance contracts) must be reconciled rather than selectively adopted.

- Practice implications
- Present clear, itemized, and supported evidence for the marital standard of living (invoices, receipts, amortization schedules, tax returns, expert lifestyle analyses).
- If grossing-up for taxes, establish the filer’s actual effective tax rate with returns or reliable expert computation rather than demonstratives.
- Anticipate appellate scrutiny of how experts’ numbers are reconciled; avoid relying on court “everyday experience” to quantify lifestyle costs.
- For respondents seeking permanent maintenance, ensure documentary proof for each claimed post-dissolution lifestyle expense and clearly separate child-related costs from spousal maintenance needs.