In re Marriage of Xinos, 2025 IL App (1st) 232326

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Xinos, 2025 IL App (1st) 232326 (1st Dist., 2nd Div., op. filed June 17, 2025).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Catherine Xinos. Respondent-Appellant: Michael Marino (appealing pro se).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly granted petitioner’s motion in limine (pursuant to Ill. S. Ct. R. 219(c)) excluding respondent’s evidence that certain financial accounts were nonmarital as a sanction for discovery failures.
- Whether the trial court correctly characterized the contested accounts as marital property when respondent introduced no admissible evidence of pre-marital ownership or contributions.

3) Holding/outcome
- Judgment affirmed. The appellate court held respondent forfeited his challenge to the exclusion for failure to make an adequate offer of proof, and alternatively concluded the exclusion and the marital-characterization determinations were not an abuse of discretion.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Forfeiture: The court reiterated that when evidence is excluded by a motion in limine, the party must make an adequate, particularized offer of proof at trial to preserve the issue for appeal. Respondent made no such offer; pro se status does not excuse this requirement.
- Sanction/Rule 219(c): The trial court’s exclusion was upheld because respondent never supplemented discovery, failed to produce documents (despite interrogatories and requests seeking nonmarital-account documents), and admitted at trial he had not tendered documents evidencing pre-marital balances. Exclusion is an authorized remedy for discovery abuse and was not an abuse of discretion here.
- Marital-characterization: Even where some account statements were in the record (many introduced by petitioner), the statements did not show account opening dates or that funds originated pre-marriage; respondent presented no admissible evidence to rebut the statutory presumption that property acquired during marriage is marital. The trial court reasonably found respondent failed to overcome the marital presumption and classified the accounts as marital.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Strictly comply with discovery and supplementation obligations; failure can lead to exclusion of critical evidence under Rule 219(c).
- If evidence is excluded, make a detailed offer of proof on the record to preserve appellate review. Pro se status offers no exemption.
- For characterization disputes, obtain and preserve bank/retirement records showing account opening dates, source of funds, and contribution history well before discovery cutoff; consider subpoenas for third‑party records.
- If counsel error impairs discovery, move promptly to reopen discovery or continue trial and create a record documenting diligence and prejudice. Courts will scrutinize postjudgment attempts to cure discovery defaults.