In re Marriage of Zuber, 2020 IL App (5th) 190484-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Zuber, No. 5-19-0484, 2020 IL App (5th) 190484-U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist. Nov. 25, 2020) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Matthew A. Zuber. Respondent-Appellee: Amanda L. Zuber.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in valuing and allocating marital assets and debts.
- Whether the court properly handled child support (including summer abatement/deviation) and maintenance requests.
- Whether the court erred in excluding the wife’s military basic allowance for housing (BAH) from income when assessing husband’s claim for maintenance.
- Whether the court abused its discretion in denying husband’s requests for: (a) wife’s participation in the Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) for his benefit or ordering her to elect/seek military retirement benefits promptly; and (b) attorney fees.

3. Holding / Outcome
- Affirmed in part and reversed in part: the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on valuation/allocation of assets and debts, child support deviation, denial of SBP/insurance requests, and denial of an order compelling immediate application for military retirement benefits.
- Reversed on one issue: the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the wife’s military housing allowance (BAH) from consideration as income in determining the propriety and amount of maintenance for the husband. The case was remanded for reconsideration of maintenance and the associated attorney-fee award in light of BAH being included.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: the appellate court applied abuse-of-discretion review to the trial court’s property division, child-support deviation, maintenance determinations, and discretionary orders concerning benefits and fees. The court found the trial court’s asset valuations and allocations were supported by the record (even where assessments conflicted) and within its broad discretion.
- Military pay components: the appellate court concluded the trial court erred in excluding the wife’s BAH when assessing maintenance. BAH is a component of military compensation that bears on the spouse’s ability to pay/support and thus must be considered in maintenance analysis.
- Discretion on SBP and compulsion: the court emphasized the trial court’s discretion in declining to order a service member to elect SBP or to force immediate administrative actions regarding retirement elections; compelling such elections raises autonomy and administrative concerns and was not warranted here.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- When litigating maintenance involving military members, counsel must expressly include and document all pay components (BAH, BAS, COLA, base pay) — courts will treat allowances as relevant income for maintenance.
- Preserve a robust evidentiary record on property values (multiple appraisals, tax assessments, repair estimates) because appellate courts defer to trial-court valuations supported by the record.
- Expect reluctance from courts to order a service member to make or change SBP elections or to force immediate administrative actions; consider negotiating Survivor Benefit protections or addressing potential future elections in settlement language.
- If maintenance is recalculated, re-litigate attendant attorney-fee awards and demonstrate need and ability to pay.