In re Marriage of Brill
2017 IL App (2d) 160604
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Amy and Randy Brill divorced after a ~22½-year marriage; trial court dissolved the marriage and awarded Amy maintenance and a share of property.
- Amy suffers from significant chronic health conditions, worked part-time at Mercy Health Systems (hourly, ~32–37 hrs/week), and testified to annual earnings around $23,000; she received substantial financial help from her parents (largely characterized as loans).
- Randy earned about $91,000/year and began cohabiting with Stephanie Bailey; Stephanie provided 401(k) funds for the purchase of an Island Lake house titled to both Stephanie and Randy.
- Trial court found: (1) Amy’s gross annual income ≈ $26,135 (excluding parental loans), (2) maintenance of $1,840/month using the statutory formula but shortened duration to 96 months, and (3) Randy’s undivided 50% interest in the Island Lake house was marital property with 50% of equity valued at $13,500 (Amy awarded half of Randy’s interest = $6,750).
- Randy appealed, arguing errors in calculating and applying maintenance guidelines (including failure to apply the 40% cap and to impute income to Amy) and in classifying/valuing the Island Lake house interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amy) | Defendant's Argument (Randy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper gross income for maintenance | Court reasonably found Amy’s income ≈ $26,135 based on testimony/paystubs and limited hours due to health | Court miscalculated Amy’s income and should have included parental payments as income | Affirmed: trial court’s $26,135 finding not against manifest weight; parental funds were loans, not income |
| Application of statutory maintenance formula (30%–20%) and 40% cap | Court applied statutory formula to compute amount; no reason to deviate from amount | Court applied formula but failed to enforce 40% cap; award exceeded cap | Modify: trial court used 30%–20% calc but omitted 40% cap; appellate court reduced maintenance to $1,727/month |
| Imputation of income for underemployment | Court considered underemployment when reducing maintenance duration (to 96 months) | Court should have imputed higher income to Amy, increasing/reducing maintenance duration/amount | Affirmed: trial court considered underemployment and appropriately limited duration; no abuse of discretion |
| Classification and valuation of Island Lake house interest | House interest is marital because Randy failed to show Stephanie’s funds were an irrevocable gift to him | Randy’s share derived from Stephanie’s 401(k) and was a nonmarital gift to him | Affirmed: interest is marital (presumption stood); equity calculation ($355,000 − $328,000 = $27,000; Randy’s half = $13,500) and award to Amy ($6,750) not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (2004) (defines “income” for support purposes and treats gifts as income for child support analysis)
- In re Marriage of Tegeler, 365 Ill. App. 3d 448 (2006) (loans generally should not be treated as income)
- In re Marriage of Nord, 402 Ill. App. 3d 288 (2010) (maintenance award is presumed correct; review for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (2005) (scope of trial court discretion in maintenance awards)
- In re Marriage of Joynt, 375 Ill. App. 3d 817 (2007) (distinguishes cases with undisputed facts on characterizing third‑party contributions)