In re Marriage of Vician

Full Case Summary

Notice

Rule 23 — nonprecedential: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).

Case Details & Panel

Case: 2025 IL App (3d) 240493‑U — Order filed August 26, 2025. Court: Illinois Appellate Court, Third District. Parties: In re Marriage of Gary Vician (Petitioner–Appellant) v. Kathleen Vician (Respondent–Appellee). Circuit: 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County, No. 02‑D‑2025; Appeal No. 3‑24‑0493. Trial judge: Neal W. Cerne. Opinion by: Justice Hettel; concurring: Justices Peterson and Anderson.

Procedural & Factual Background

A dissolution judgment dated December 23, 2003 incorporated a marital settlement agreement providing each spouse 50% of the marital portion of Kathleen’s work‑related benefit plans as of December 22, 2003, to be divided by QDRO. Kathleen had an Elmhurst Memorial Hospital Pension Plan and a separate Elmhurst retirement savings account. A QDRO entered October 14, 2009 awarded Gary 50% of pension benefits accrued through the agreement date; no QDRO was entered for the savings account. On September 21, 2022 Gary petitioned for an accounting of monies in Kathleen’s retirement accounts. An evidentiary hearing was held July 1, 2024.

Evidence at Hearing

Kathleen testified she closed the savings account in 2012 with a final balance of $14,120.95 and an outstanding self‑made loan of $10,078.56. She described limited post‑divorce finances (≈$60,000/year income, monthly obligations ≈$4,300, about $6,500 attorney fees unpaid). Gary—an experienced financial officer—presented his own valuation (claiming his share equaled $34,974.94) based partly on estimates; CPA Edward John Graham reviewed account statements and testified Gary’s pre‑tax interest was $22,699.74. Graham used actual account figures and a documented methodology; Gary’s calculation relied on estimates and assumed a 28% tax rate.

Trial Court Ruling & Relief

On July 10, 2024 the circuit court credited Graham’s valuation, treated the account as a 403(b) subject to income tax, and—using Gary’s stated 28% tax rate—reduced the pre‑tax figure to an after‑tax award of $16,343.81. The court ordered the award to be effected by QDRO and required Kathleen to pay $50 per month until satisfied. Gary filed notice of appeal August 8, 2024, challenging the valuation and the installment schedule.

Issues on Appeal & Standard of Review

Gary argued the court erred by crediting Graham’s calculations instead of his own. Factual findings from an evidentiary hearing are reviewed for whether they are against the manifest weight of the evidence (deference to trial court credibility determinations); marital‑property distributions and payment terms are reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Appellate Court Analysis & Disposition

The appellate court declined to reweigh competing valuations. The record supported the trial court’s decision to credit Graham’s calculation based on actual account statements over Gary’s estimates, and the court’s finding that Gary’s interest was $22,699.74 (pre‑tax) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Nor did the record show an abuse of discretion in the $50/month installment requirement given Kathleen’s demonstrated financial need. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Du Page County was affirmed.