Michelle A. Lawless,Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC, Chicago
312-741-1092 | E-mail Michelle Lawless
Reviewable Maintenance Reversed Due to Permanent Maintenance Being Warranted and More
Reviewable Maintenance Reversed Due to Permanent Maintenance Being Warranted
In Biangardi v. Biangardi, 2025 IL App (1st) 221559-U, when the pretrial litigation lasted almost five years, the wife, who represented herself at trial, appealed the trial court’s award of two-year reviewable maintenance in the amount of $4,500 per month. 2025 IL App (1st) 221559-U at ¶2. The appellate court reversed, finding the case a “classic” example warranting permanent maintenance. 2025 IL App (1st) 221559-U at ¶37. The parties were married for 27½ years, during which the wife was a stay-at-home mom with a GED and no college degree. She had no employment history and was recently earning $12 per hour as a cashier. 2025 IL App (1st) 221559-U at ¶14. The husband owned multiple businesses during the marriage, and it was undisputed that the parties had lived a lavish lifestyle historically, although the husband’s businesses had gone through a downturn. The trial court was also upheld on the 50-50 division of marital assets, ordering two homes and ancillary business assets sold, and the barring of the wife’s untimely expert testimony and report and exhibits. The wife failed to produce her expert report or her exhibits in accordance with the trial court’s trial order. The court noted the wife had appeared pro se at trial after being represented by six law firms throughout the pretrial litigation and reiterated the well-settled principle that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as counsel.
Language in Marital Settlement Agreement Limited Payout on Deferred Compensation to Marital Payments Only
The First District affirmed the trial court’s interpretation of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) provision requiring the ex-husband to pay the ex-wife 50 percent of future deferred compensation distributions received from his former employer. In re Marriage of Zisook, 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U, ¶1. The court held the MSA unambiguously limited the ex-wife’s 50 percent to deferred compensation that was marital property, funds earned during the marriage and paid out post-dissolution. The dispute arose over three payments received in 2018 and 2019 totaling $390,158, which the ex-husband argued were nonmarital because they were earned after the dissolution. 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U at ¶6. The trial court found the 2018 payment was based on 2015 employment (during the marriage) and thus marital, but because the 2019 payments stemmed from post-dissolution compensation, they were nonmarital. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s ruling consistent with contract interpretation principles and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Part and parcel to the decision was the fact the court rejected the ex-wife’s argument that the MSA language that “any” future deferred compensation included nonmarital payments, reasoning such a reading would nullify other provisions limiting the agreement to marital assets.
Trial Court’s Imputation of Income to Husband for Child Support Purposes Upheld, Including Several Issues Pertaining to Nonmarital Property
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on several key issues involving imputed income and nonmarital property characterization in In re Marriage of Ibrahim, 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U. The trial court properly imputed $7,500 in monthly income to the husband. 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U at ¶4. He failed to produce credible evidence of his income through documentation and testified his income was between $3,000 and $12,000 per month. 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U at ¶¶4, 5, 19. Child support was set at $188 per month, which was upheld along with shared children’s expense obligations. 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U at ¶34. The wife claimed interest in two nonmarital LLCs, which was also upheld given the evidence showed both were capitalized solely with gifts from her father and never commingled with marital assets. The husband claimed ownership in one LLC due to being the registered agent and managing member in the articles of incorporation. However, because he was not listed as an owner in the operating agreement, he did not hold an ownership interest. Pursuant to the Limited Liability Company Act (LLCA), 805 ILCS 180/1-1, et seq., a company’s operating agreement, not its articles of organization, dictates membership in an LLC.
For more information about family law, see ADOPTION LAW (IICLE®, 2024). Online Library subscribers can view it for free by clicking here. If you don’t currently subscribe to the Online Library, visit www.iicle.com/subscriptions.