In re Marriage of Zamudio, 2019 IL App (3d) 160537

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Zamudio, 2019 IL App (3d) 160537 (3d Dist. Feb. 20, 2019). Petitioner-Appellant: Louise Zamudio (f/k/a Louise Ochoa). Respondent‑Appellee: Frank Ochoa Jr.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether 48 months of permissive military service credit — earned by respondent pre‑marriage but purchased during the marriage with marital funds to enhance his Illinois State pension — constitutes marital property for purposes of dividing the pension.
2) Whether the proper remedy for marital funds used to purchase such credits is inclusion of the enhancement in the marital fraction of the pension or merely reimbursement to the marital estate (In re Marriage of Ramsey guidance).

- Holding/outcome
The Third District reversed the trial court’s post‑trial ruling that treated the purchased permissive military credit as nonmarital and limited petitioner to reimbursement. The cause was remanded for appropriate treatment consistent with the opinion (i.e., the trial court erred as a matter of law by excluding the enhancement from the marital share).

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court reviewed de novo the legal effect of undisputed facts. It found Ramsey instructive but not controlling: Ramsey dealt largely with valuation issues and enhancements tied to eligibility created outside the marriage or post‑dissolution, and its discussion about entitlement was largely dicta. Here, the purchased credits were bought during the marriage and produced an increased annuity that respondent was receiving during the marriage. Because the enhancement came into existence and affected pension payments while the marriage continued, it should be treated as part of the marital estate (or at least be apportioned as part of the marital pension), not simply the subject of a reimbursement rule applied as if the enhancement were nonmarital. The court emphasized the import of timing (purchase and receipt of enhanced payments during the marriage) in characterizing pension enhancements.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- When a pensioner purchases service credits with marital funds, expect courts to treat the resulting enhancement (if it exists/produces payments during the marriage) as marital property or subject to division, not merely reimbursable.
- Preserve and document timing: dates of service, dates of purchase, source of funds, and dates pension payments began.
- Early valuation and pension‑division briefing should address whether an enhancement produced during the marriage increased pension payments received while married — this timing can be dispositive.
- Consider seeking (or opposing) QILDROs and express language allocating enhanced portions, and account for potential offsets for nonmarital contributions.
- Negotiate reimbursement versus inclusion strategies with these factual permutations in mind; be prepared to litigate characterization under Ramsey and its limits.