In re Marriage of Brill
2017 IL App (2d) 160604
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Amy and Randy Brill divorced after a 22½-year marriage; bench trial resulted in dissolution and orders on maintenance and property division.
- Amy suffers from significant chronic health problems, works part‑time at Mercy (~32–37 hrs/wk) and testified to annual wages around $23,000; her parents provided substantial post‑separation financial assistance (~$32k loans, ~$2k gifts over ~18 months).
- Randy earns about $91,000 per year and co‑purchased (with girlfriend Stephanie) the Island Lake house during the marriage; Stephanie’s 401(k) funded the down payment and subsequent deposits; Randy pays half the mortgage from a joint account.
- Trial court treated Randy’s undivided 50% interest in the Island Lake house as marital property, valued Randy’s 50% interest in equity at $13,500, and awarded Amy half of that ($6,750).
- Trial court computed maintenance using statutory formula (30% of payor minus 20% of payee) and found Amy’s gross annual income ~$26,135, awarding $1,840/month maintenance for 96 months (deviated downward from 270 months based on factors including parental support and Amy’s employability).
- Appellate court affirmed except it reduced maintenance to $1,727/month because the trial court failed to apply the statutory 40% cap on combined gross income when computing the maintenance amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amy) | Defendant's Argument (Randy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper gross income for maintenance | Trial court’s $26,135 finding was supported by wages and testimony | Trial court miscalculated; paystubs and parental support show higher income | Affirmed: $26,135 reasonable and not against manifest weight |
| Application of statutory maintenance formula (including 40% cap) | Formula applied correctly to compute amount | Trial court misapplied guidelines and failed to apply 40% cap | Court found trial court used first sentence formula but omitted 40% cap; reduced award to $1,727/month |
| Imputation of income to Amy for underemployment | No imputation necessary; court considered underemployment in duration deviation | Amy should have income imputed given past higher earnings and parental support | Affirmed: court considered underemployment and limited duration; no abuse of discretion |
| Classification and valuation of Randy’s interest in Island Lake house | Interest is marital; not a gift; equity split partly marital | Interest was nonmarital gift from Stephanie; Randy entitled to full equity | Affirmed: interest marital (no clear‑convincing proof of gift); valuation of Randy’s 50% equity and award to Amy not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (establishes standard for abuse of discretion review)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (maintenance awards lie within trial court discretion)
- In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (gifts may be income for support calculations; recurring vs. nonrecurring income considerations)
- Provena Covenant Med. Ctr. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 236 Ill. 2d 368 (definition and elements of a gift)
- In re Marriage of Joynt, 375 Ill. App. 3d 817 (distinguishing factual scenarios where de novo review is appropriate)
- In re Marriage of Nord, 402 Ill. App. 3d 288 (standards for reviewing maintenance findings)