In re Marriage of Yearman, 2023 IL App (3d) 220126‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Keith Yearman (Petitioner‑Appellant) and Nadia Yearman (Respondent‑Appellee), 2023 IL App (3d) 220126‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Aug. 14, 2023).
- Filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 (non‑precedential).

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by requiring petitioner to proceed to a bench trial despite contention that respondent had not complied with discovery requests and discovery orders.
- Whether awards of temporary maintenance, permanent maintenance, interim attorney fees, and findings of dissipation of marital assets were justified.
- Whether the trial court appropriately treated testimony invoking the Fifth Amendment and addressed foreign (Mexican) property claimed by respondent.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects. It held the trial court did not err in (1) proceeding to trial without compelling additional discovery compliance, (2) awarding temporary maintenance, ongoing maintenance, and attorney fees to respondent, and (3) its determination regarding dissipation of marital assets and related rulings.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Discretion to proceed: The appellate court emphasized the trial court’s broad discretion over discovery management and trial scheduling. The court found no abuse in requiring trial to proceed where the record did not show the trial court’s actions were arbitrary or prejudicial to petitioner.
- Maintenance and support: The court found the maintenance awards were supported by statutory factors (length of marriage, disparity of income, child care role, respondent’s limited earnings and need, petitioner’s college income). Respondent’s affidavits and testimony provided a sufficient evidentiary basis.
- Dissipation and assets: The court upheld the trial court’s factual findings about dissipation (linked to evidence of respondent’s association with a location raided by DEA and seized funds), and noted that the trial court appropriately declined to impute income or value to foreign real estate (Mexican property) where the record lacked reliable information about fair market value or income.
- Fifth Amendment: The record showed respondent invoked the Fifth in response to some questions; the trial court’s treatment of that invocation and its evidentiary limitations did not constitute reversible error.
- Attorney fees: The court found the trial court reasonably awarded fees based on the parties’ conduct (repeated subpoenas/motions and increased litigation costs).

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve a clear discovery record: motions to compel, sanctions, and clear rulings should be in the record to preserve appellate review.
- Don’t assume invoking the Fifth will automatically benefit the invoking party; courts may limit inferences and will require independent evidence for valuations or dissipation findings.
- When foreign assets are claimed, develop admissible valuation and income evidence (appraisals, tax returns, translations) before seeking imputation.
- Interim maintenance and fee awards are fact‑driven; attorney conduct that needlessly multiplies litigation costs can justify fee shifting.
- Remember Rule 23 limits: this decision is non‑precedential, but it underscores trial‑court discretion in discovery and evidentiary management.