Illinois Divorce Law...

Illinois Law - What Are Some Examples of Property Divisions?

The following are examples of property division cases in Illinois.

Cases:

Koberlein (1996) 217 Ill.Dec.606, 281 Ill.App.3d 880, 667 N.E.2d 695 (The judge took into account the wife's domestic duties over the course of the marriage, her limited future earning capacity, and the 30 year duration of the marriage, in awarding the wife 51% of the marital estate. Although the judge also ordered the husband to pay temporary maintenance of $200 a month for 18 months, the wife's request for permanent maintenance was denied, taking into account the custody award of the parties' remaining minor child, of age nine, to the husband, and that the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage was not lavish. While the husband had maintained the couple's farming operations during the marriage, the wife's primary role was that of homemaker. The wife had also worked a variety of part-time jobs in addition to working on the farm for a period of time. She was currently employed full-time at an annual salary of $9,000 a year, and possessed nonmarital property of one-sixth interest in 120 acres of land and one-half interest in 40 acres of land. Her annual living expenses were estimated at $26,000 not including expenses for rent. The husband's annual income was estimated to be $23,000 while his expenses were estimated at $25,000 annually. Both parties were 51 years of age and in good health. The court awarded custody of the minor child to the father and ordered the wife to pay $36 in child support, monthly. While the husband was awarded the farm (valued at $169,000) and $20,000 in accumulated earnings, he was required to pay the wife a balance of $66,000 over 10 years at an interest rate of 9%, in addition to a lump-sum of $25,000, immediately payable. The court also awarded the wife the parties' Plymouth Voyager as well as $24,000 in investments.)

Charles (1996) 219 Ill.Dec. 742, 284 Ill.App.3d 339, 672 N.E.2d 57 (On review, the appellate court determined the awarding of marital assets and debts to be inequitable, and the awards of spousal maintenance and child support to be inadequate. The trial court had ordered the husband to pay child support that was substantially below child support guidelines (of 25% of the noncustodial parent's income, for two children) for no apparent reason. The trial court also did not take into account the husband's dissipation of marital assets in the period after separation but before divorce, and the inadequacy of the maintenance award in enabling the wife to enjoy a lifestyle consistent with the lifestyle she had enjoyed during the marriage. The appellate court reasoned that one party should not be allowed to continue its standard of living while the other is forced to reduce its standard of living substantially, even if the goal of financial independence for both parties is rendered unachievable. The parties had been married for 19 years. Although the wife abandoned her medical studies and acted as the primary caregiver for the parties' two children, the husband established a profitable medical practice, with a net income of $292,000 in the year of the divorce. Although the husband had substantial potential for future income, the wife had only recently graduated college and was without job, with her expenses estimated to be $84,000 annually. The husband was ordered to pay $27,000 a year in child support and $33,000 in spousal maintenance, reviewable after three years. The trial court divided marital debts of $345,000 (including several years of tax liabilities, and the husband's income tax) that accrued after the parties had separated. The trial court awarded the wife $49,000 in personal property, and a two-year-old Audi. The husband was awarded two homes, a one year old Nissan Pathfinder, the debt thereon, and the medical practice. On review, the court found that the husband had dissipated marital property. The wife claimed the husband did so by purchasing furniture for himself, spending $116,000 of the marital estate on an extra-marital relationship, liquidating investments valued at $210,000, and incurring interest and penalties on tax debt of $26,000, during the period after separation but before divorce. The trial court also erred in ordering marital assets to be used to satisfy the husband's tax liability in the year of the divorce of $108,000 (entered in March of that year). Marital assets should only have been used to satisfy one-fourth of the liability as only one-fourth of the year had passed upon the judgment for divorce.)

Miller, App. 3 Dist.1992, 172 Ill.Dec. 679, 231 Ill.App.3d 480, 595 N.E.2d 1349 (The judge determined that a child support award of $120 a week was justified, but denied permanent maintenance where the husband earned $31,000 a year and the marriage lasted three years. The wife argued that this amount did not accurately perpetuate the standard of living enjoyed during the marriage. However, the court found that $44,000 earned from the sale of investments during the marriage should not inflate the future earnings estimated for the husband. The judge also denied the wife's motion for reimbursement to the marital estate for her contribution to the husband's business (deemed non-marital property) because the court lacked evidence that there had been significant appreciation and that this appreciation was due to the personal efforts of the wife. The court was also unable to find clear and convincing evidence that marital assets had been used to pay mortgage payments on the husband's business. The court did, however, reimburse the husband for $3,650 in mortgage payments on the marital residence (which was the husband's separate property), where the $3,650 was traced to the sale of a non-marital asset. In deciding upon maintenance, the judge determined the wife to be healthy and employable. In addition to the short duration of the marriage, the judge further found that the wife had sufficient property and income to provide for her needs. The husband was ordered to pay the wife's insurance for two years or until she found employment, as temporary maintenance. The parties had one child. During the marriage the wife worked as a licensed beautician, earning $16,000 a year, in addition to working at the husband's business, and attending college. At the time of the divorce the wife was 30 years old and unemployed and had the care of two minor children (one from a former marriage). The wife received approximately 50% of the marital assets valued at $19,000 in addition to a six-year-old Lincoln and $2,000 in credit card debts. The husband was awarded his substantial non-marital assets in addition to $8,000 in credit card debts and the payment of $3,500 of the wife's attorney fees. In addition, $2,950 in loans from the marital savings account to a non-marital asset were classified as a marital asset and ordered to be distributed equally among the parties.)

Scoville (1992) 174 Ill. Dec. 394, 233 Ill.App.3d 746, 598 N.E.2d 1026 (The lower court had awarded more than 60% of the property, worth around $464,000, to the husband. It had awarded the remaining 40%, worth around $240,000, to the wife. The appeals court found that this was unfair, and that the award should have been closer to 50/50. The marriage lasted 22 years and the wife contributed substantial services for fourteen years as homemaker. The court determined that the source of the assets becomes less of a factor and the spouse's role as homemaker becomes greater in a long-term marriage. The parties had one child during the marriage who was twelve years old at the time of the divorce. Unlike the husband, the wife had minimal non-marital assets and was awarded no income-producing property. The wife had no special training or skills and was earning $5000 a year without benefits, in addition to an award of $9000 in child support and $5000 in spousal maintenance every year for four years. The estimated cost for the remaining two years left in her nursing program was $4,000.)

Moll (1992) 174 Ill.Dec. 18, 232 Ill. App.3d 746, 597 N.E.2d 1230 (The court awarded each spouse approximately 50% of the property. The wife was awarded the farm, even though the farm was run as part of the husband's family's farming business. The court ordered that the wife would have to sell the farm for its current value, if the husband or family could and wanted to buy it. The court also ordered that, before the wife could sell to anyone else, she would have to offer the husband's family the right to buy it from her at the proposed sale price. The wife's share (the farm) was valued at $66,300. The husband's share was valued at $68,100. the parties had been married for 20 years. They had raised three children, ages 20, 17 and 15 at the dissolution proceeding. The wife was not experienced in farming, but the husband's family was doing the actual farming on the property. The wife, age 37 at the divorce, was able to work and was working outside the home.)

Lee (1993) 186 Ill.Dec. 257, 246 Ill.App.3d 628, 615 N.E.2d 1314 (In this case, the court awarded approximately 55% of the assets, worth a total of about $745,000, to the husband, and 45% of the assets, worth a total of about $612,000, to the wife. One of the reasons for the disparity was that the husband had secretly transferred $266,000 to the children in the three months before the divorce. This was found to have been done solely to put the assets out of the wife's reach. Accordingly, it was found to be a dissipation of the marital assets. The parties had been married for 17 years before the separation. There had been two children, on of whom died during the divorce proceedings. The other was still a minor. The court also ordered $3,000 per month child support and $2,000 per month maintenance. The husband was an ophthalmologist earning an average of around $390,000 a year. There were also allegations that the husband beat the wife regularly during the marriage.)

Hale (1996) 662 N.E.2d 180 (In this case, the court tried not to let the husband profit from his fraud. After the parties had been divorced, the wife discovered that the husband had concealed some real estate from her. He also concealed that he had earned a real estate commission. In the meantime, the value of the real estate in question had increased. The court found that the land should be valued as of the re-trial date, even though that was three years after the divorce. This gave the wife the benefit of the increase in the value of the land during that time. The parties had been married for six years. The wife was in her 30's, the husband was in his 50's. The wife earned about $15,000 a year. The husband was not employed but received social security payments of $13,300 a year. When the husband turned 65, he would be entitled to a pension of another $12,000 a year. The court divided the property about 50/50, even though it was a six-year marriage and the wife was much younger than the husband.)

Email this page on to a friend.

Disclaimer: We are not giving legal advice. No warranties. We disclaim all legal liability. More...

Click here to go to top Illinois divorce law page.

Click here for the Illinois divorce legal table of contents.