In re Marriage of Veile, 2015 IL App (5th) 130499

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Veile, 2015 IL App (5th) 130499 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 10, 2015).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Cheryl A. Veile. Respondent‑Appellee: Roger D. Veile. Judgment: affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether gifted corporate shares and post‑sale retained earnings/distributions held in corporate Fidelity accounts were marital or nonmarital property.
- Adequacy and duration of spousal maintenance award.
- Denial of discovery sanctions and request for postmajority educational support.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s classification of (a) the 43 shares gifted to Roger in Veile Construction Co. (Arapaho Village, Inc.) and (b) Roger’s portion of the Fidelity investment accounts/distributions as nonmarital property.
- The court found the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Cheryl only $650/month maintenance with an early termination possibility and reversed/remanded the maintenance determination for reconsideration consistent with statutory factors.
- Other rulings (including denial of sanctions and child postmajority support) were effectively left undisturbed.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Corporate separateness: the court emphasized that the Fidelity accounts were corporate assets of Arapaho Village, Inc. (accounts used the corporation’s tax ID and produced 1099s in the corporate name). Gifts of corporate stock that predated the marriage and proceeds from sale retained at the corporate level were treated as nonmarital absent evidence that Roger’s personal efforts caused the asset’s appreciation. Maintenance of an asset or receipt of distributions used to fund a marital lifestyle does not automatically transmute corporate property into marital property.
- Rebutting transmutation presumption: although Cheryl’s name had appeared on corporate accounts and distributions flowed through the joint account, the appellate court accepted the evidence (corporate records, compensation/payroll, tax filings) that demonstrated no gift to the marital estate and that distributions remained corporate/nonmarital.
- Maintenance: given a 28‑year marriage, Cheryl’s long absence from the workforce, age (57), limited education and earning capacity, and the parties’ disparate asset positions, the maintenance award and duration were insufficient and required reexamination under the statutory factors.

5) Practice implications
- For practitioners representing owners/officers of closely held businesses: preserve corporate formalities, document intent when gifts are made, keep corporate funds segregated and maintain corporate tax/1099 records—these strongly support nonmarital characterization.
- For litigators representing the spouse claiming transmutation: forensic tracing and clear evidence that personal efforts produced appreciation are critical; mere comingsling or use of distributions for marital expenses may be insufficient.
- On maintenance, ensure the trial court makes explicit findings tied to statutory factors (length of marriage, age, health, work history, earning capacity, contributions) and that the amount/duration are justified; inadequate findings invite reversal and remand.
- When seeking sanctions or discovery relief, demonstrate clear prejudice and linkage to the contested valuation/allocation issues.