Anderson & Boback attorney Jessica C. Marshall represented the wife in a divorce matter in which she sought a spousal maintenance award. Prevailing on behalf of her client, Ms. Marshall’s client was awarded monthly spousal maintenance. The Illinois Trial Court selected this case to appear in the Illinois Divorce Digest, Volume 9.
The parties were married on December 15, 2006. No children were born to the parties. The estate was modest. Judge John W. Demling imputed income to the unemployed wife of $22,000 annually and awarded monthly maintenance of $1,566.66 for 33.4 months.
The husband was sixty-two years of age and earned approximately $80,000 per year. The wife was fifty-two years of age and was unemployed, but was capable of earning $22,000 per year.
The court found that the husband committed dissipation of marital funds from the $68,000 in cash that he was holding during the pendency of this matter. The husband provided an accounting of those funds. A number of the expenditures constituted dissipation as they were expenses for non-marital purposes including travel and vacation trips for him and his parents.
The marital estate, not inclusive of the home, consisted of retirement accounts, vehicles, a 401k account which were valued at approximately $164,000.
The parties owned the marital home in Roselle, Illinois. The court found the value of the property to be $230,000 and that a mortgage encumbered the property of $106,720, and that the total equity in the marital home was $123,280. The wife had approximately $31,500 in debts for living expenses and attorney’s fees as well as an additional $15,000 in credit card debt. The overall division with minor exceptions was a fifty-fifty split.
The husband was awarded the marital home and the wife was awarded the sum of $61,640, which represented 50% of the value of the marital home. The husband was to have six months to refinance the marital home so as to remove the wife’s name from the mortgage and to pay her the sum of $61,645. In the event that the husband was unable or did not re-finance the marital home to remove the wife’s name, as well as pay her the $61,645, the house was to be immediately listed for sale and the net proceeds were to be equally divided after all closing costs were paid.
The wife was also awarded the sum of $100,000 from the husband’s 401(k) account. She was awarded a disproportionate amount from this account taking into consideration the husband’s dissipation of the marital estate in the sum of $29,304 (one half of which would have been $14,652) as well as the large amount of debt which the wife had due to credit cards and loans.
Award of Spousal Maintenance Was Appropriate
The court found that pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/504(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, and considering all of the factors therein, an award of maintenance was appropriate in this case. The court did not find a deviation from the statute was appropriate.
For the purpose of calculating maintenance, the court found the husband’s income to be $80,000 per year and found the wife’s income to be $22,000 per year. Maintenance per the statute would have been $19,600, but due to the 40% of the total amount of the parties’ income amounting to $18,800, maintenance was annually set at $18,800 or, the sum of $1,566.66 per month. The sum of $1,566.66 was due for a period of 33.4 months, after which time, this obligation was to terminate.
Statutory Time Frame Calculation
The spousal maintenance time frame was calculated by using the statutory time frame calculation contemplated in Section 750 ILCS 5/504 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, which was .40 multiplied by the length of the parties’ marriage (111 months) and also giving the husband credit for eleven months of temporary maintenance, which he paid (or would pay) from June of 2017 through May of 2018. This maintenance award was modifiable as to term and duration pursuant to statute.
Attorneys Fees Contribution by Husband
Each party was to be responsible for their own attorney’s fees without any contribution from one another, except as to the contribution of $2,500 of the wife’s attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/508(b) due to the court finding the husband was in indirect civil contempt.
The husband was represented by Donald J. Cosley of Cosley Law Office. Attorney Donald Cosley: “I thought the decision was fair to both sides relative to the property division, maintenance, and dissipation claims.”