In re Marriage of Berberet, 974 N.E.2d 417

Rebecca and David Berberet married in 1991 and have three children; at trial Rebecca was primary custodial parent.
The trial court downwardly deviated from the child-support guidelines, ordering $1,000 monthly instead of $1,433 for three children.
Assets included retirement accounts, pensions, certificates of deposit (CDs), vehicles, bank accounts, and a joint marital home valued by the court; Rebecca’s SOGA profit-sharing account was later valued for the split.
David received a workers’ compensation settlement and used the funds for housing, attorney fees, debt, and vacations; the court found dissipation arguments uncertain but allowed the funds to be used for marital purposes.
The court treated CDs purchased with nonmarital gifts as nonmarital property, with the CDs deemed to be David’s property and not subject to dissipation.
The court allocated tax exemptions evenly, with annual alternation for the third child, and divided the marital estate and liabilities between Rebecca and David, including an equalization payment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Downward deviation from guidelines	Berberet argued deviation was improper.	Berberet contends deviation was warranted.	Deviating downward was not an abuse of discretion.
Tax exemptions allocation	Rebecca challenges equal exemptions as inappropriate.	David argues reasonable under shared custody.	Court did not abuse discretion; exemptions alternated reasonably.
Dissipation from workers’ compensation	Rebecca claims $21,725 was dissipated marital asset.	David explains withdrawals for housing, fees, debt, and vacations; ties to marital purpose.	Court found the dissipation issue resolved; expenditures adequately explained and not dissipation.
Property classification of CDs	CDs are marital assets due to joint account involvement.	CDs funded by nonmarital gifts and intended to be held as investments; CDs were nonmarital.	CDs were properly classified as nonmarital property.
Valuation and depreciation of vehicle; dissipation	Valuation and depreciation should reflect dissipation.	No evidence of excess payment or deliberate depreciation.	Tahoe valued at market value; no dissipation attributed for depreciation.

In re Keon C., 344 Ill. App. 3d 1137 (2003) (guidelines carry presumption; downward deviation allowed with justification)
In re Marriage of Deem, 328 Ill. App. 3d 453 (2002) (child support deviations; best interests standard)
Slagel v. Wessels, 314 Ill. App. 3d 330 (2000) (judicial discretion in support settings; guideline application)
In re Marriage of Murphy, 259 Ill. App. 3d 336 (1994) (dissipation as a factor in property division; court may adjust)
In re Marriage of Selinger, 351 Ill. App. 3d 611 (2004) (attorney-fee considerations in dissolution cases)
In re Marriage of Courtright, 155 Ill. App. 3d 55 (1987) (valuation of marital property; burden to present evidence)