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 marital property.
- Amy has significant health problems limiting her work; she earned about $23,000/year at Mercy (32–37 hrs/wk) and received temporary maintenance plus substantial financial assistance from her parents beginning after separation.
- Randy earns $91,000/year and purchased (with girlfriend Stephanie) an Island Lake house during the marriage; Stephanie’s 401(k) funded the down payment and they deposited funds into a joint account and shared mortgage payments.
- Trial court found Randy’s undivided 50% interest in the Island Lake house to be marital, valued Randy’s 50% interest at $13,500 (half the $27,000 equity) and awarded Amy $6,750 (half of that).
- Trial court calculated maintenance using the statutory formula and found Amy’s gross income ~ $26,135; it awarded Amy $1,840/month but reduced duration from the guideline 270 months to 96 months due to factors including parental support and Amy’s marginal underemployment.
- Appellate court affirmed classification and valuation of the house but held the trial court failed to apply the statutory 40% cap in the maintenance formula; it reduced the maintenance award to $1,727/month and otherwise affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Amy (Petitioner) Argument | Randy (Respondent) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount of maintenance (calculation) | Trial court applied statutory formula based on parties’ incomes and found no reason to deviate on amount | Trial court miscalculated Amy’s income and failed to apply the 40% cap on combined income | Court affirmed trial court’s income finding but found trial court omitted 40% cap; reduced maintenance to $1,727/mo |
| Duration of maintenance | Trial court may deviate from guideline duration based on factors (health, parental support, underemployment) | Guidelines required 270 months; deviation inappropriate | Court upheld downward deviation to 96 months based on enumerated statutory factors |
| Imputation of income to Amy | Amy’s health limits hours; trial court considered underemployment when setting duration | Amy is underemployed and should have imputed higher income for maintenance calculations | Court found trial court considered underemployment and did not abuse discretion |
| Classification/valuation of Island Lake house | Randy’s half-interest is marital (presumption) and evidence did not show a gift; equity calculation proper | Interest was nonmarital as a gift from Stephanie; equity belongs to Stephanie | Court held interest was marital (no clear convincing evidence of gift) and valuation at half the equity ($13,500) awarding Amy $6,750 was not against manifest weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Nord v. Nord, 402 Ill. App. 3d 288 (trial court’s maintenance award presumed correct on appeal)
- Schneider v. Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (maintenance amount lies within trial court discretion)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (abuse of discretion standard—findings arbitrary or fanciful)
- Rogers v. Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (gifts treated as income for child support; recurrence relevant to deviation)
- Joynt v. Joynt, 375 Ill. App. 3d 817 (classification issues where facts are undisputed)
- Provena Covenant Medical Center v. Department of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368 (definition/elements of a gift)