In re Marriage of Wiewel, 2021 IL App (4th) 210108-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Wiewel, 2021 IL App (4th) 210108‑U.
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Pamela Wiewel. Respondent‑Appellant: Douglas S. Wiewel. Appeal from Adams County (No. 19D195).

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in (a) ordering respondent to reimburse petitioner $30,000 drawn on a home‑equity line of credit and (b) awarding petitioner sole ownership of Tangerine Dreams, Inc., a corporation the parties acquired during marriage, without a market appraisal.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held respondent failed to show the trial court’s division of marital property was an abuse of discretion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: division of marital property reviewed for abuse of discretion. The equitable‑division framework is governed by §503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d)).
- $30,000 debt: although the trial court’s written decree mis‑placed the item, the record squarely shows the court treated the $34,038.64 HELOC balance as a marital liability “secured by a nonmarital asset” and ordered respondent to reimburse petitioner $30,000. The evidence (petitioner’s testimony, checks introduced for other sums, and respondent’s admissions that petitioner gave him “a few personal checks” to buy inventory) supported the court’s factual finding that those funds were loans used to benefit respondent’s nonmarital business. Given the statutory factors and the evidence, the court’s allocation was within the bounds of reason.
- Tangerine Dreams: the court awarded the corporation to petitioner after finding the parties failed to present evidence of current value. The court had twice ordered appraisal procedures (costs to be split), but respondent did not obtain an appraisal. Under abuse‑of‑discretion review, an equitable division need not be equal and a trial court may allocate assets without a precise valuation where the parties fail to develop valuation evidence. The appellant’s contention that the court should have ordered a sale or valuation was rejected because respondent failed to follow through on the court‑ordered appraisal.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Valuation hygiene: when a trial court orders or authorizes an appraisal, follow through promptly; failure to obtain valuations can foreclose appellate relief.
- Evidence preservation: keep documentary proof (checks, loan records, deposit traces) to support tracing of HELOC or similar funds; absent records, courts may credit other testimony.
- Plead for express findings when classification of assets/debts is contested; a misplaced entry in the decree can be harmless if the record clarifies the court’s intent, but specific findings reduce risk on appeal.
- Consider motions to compel or sanctions if the other side ignores court‑ordered appraisals or discovery that prejudices valuation.