In re Marriage of Wei, 2023 IL App (1st) 221336-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Wei, No. 1-22-1336, 2023 IL App (1st) 221336-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist. May 19, 2023) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Wei Wei. Respondent-Appellant: Peng Liu.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether two condominium units purchased during the marriage were marital property or Wei’s non‑marital property (gifts from her parents).
- Whether the trial court erred in calculating child support by imputing/averaging Liu’s income.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court correctly classified both units as Wei’s non‑marital property and did not abuse its discretion in imputing income for child support (court adopted Wei’s proposed $917/month support figure).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Property classification: The record showed funds for both purchases originated from Wei’s parents (wire transfers), title and mortgage were solely in Wei’s name, and Unit 1008 was bought with cash. The trial court found Wei credible and Liu not credible. Where parental gift presumptions (gift to child/non‑marital) conflict with the general post‑marital acquisition presumption (marital), the conflicting presumptions cancel and the trial court may decide based on the evidence. The court’s factual finding that the units were gifts and thus non‑marital was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- Appellate posture/evidence: Liu failed to properly supplement the record with trial exhibits (appellant’s burden); per Foutch, absent a proper record the appellate court presumes the trial court’s rulings had adequate support. The opinion also notes Liu’s brief failed to comply with Supreme Court Rules 321/341 but the appellee’s brief allowed meaningful review.
- Child support: The trial court imputed/averaged Liu’s income (self‑employed with variable earnings) — a discretionary factual determination. Illinois precedent permits imputing average income where present income is uncertain; the award was reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

5. Practice implications
- Document and preserve exhibit evidence: appellants must properly certify and include trial exhibits if challenging factual findings. Failure to supplement the record is fatal.
- Credibility findings matter: appellate courts defer to trial courts on witness credibility; inconsistent self‑serving testimony from the spouse may be insufficient to overcome a parental‑gift finding.
- Conflicting presumptions: when parental‑gift and post‑marriage marital presumptions collide, the trial court resolves on the factual record — counsel should focus on documentary proof (wire transfers, title, mortgage, payment history) and witness credibility at trial.
- Procedure: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) order; it contains a Rule 304(a) finding allowing immediate appeal.