In re Marriage of Coviello, 2016 IL App (1st) 141652

Jason (Navy officer since 1991) and Kellie married in 2003; one minor child (born 2005). Dissolution trial held in 2013; judgment entered April 30, 2014.
Jason’s military retirement accrued both pre‑marriage and during marriage; roughly 12 years nonmarital and ~11 years marital interest at time of judgment. Parties agreed Kellie would receive 50% of the marital portion (≈25% of total pension).
Military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) can be elected to name a former spouse as beneficiary, requires premiums (6.5% of selected retirement pay), is all‑or‑nothing (cannot be split), and is lost by a former spouse who remarries before 55; estate does not inherit it if former spouse predeceases member.
Trial court declined to award Kellie the SBP, citing: significant nonmarital portion of the pension, uncertainty/contingencies (future service length, premium amount, survivorship, remarriage), unfairness to Jason (would be unable to name a future spouse), and disproportionate premium burden on Jason.
As compensation, the court ordered Jason to maintain $400,000 life insurance: $200,000 for the child and $200,000 for Kellie (with premium payments by Jason), and reduced child’s share gradually after age 14; court found this substituted to protect Kellie and the child financially.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Kellie the military survivor benefit	Kellie: survivor benefit is marital property and should be awarded (cites cases treating SBP as divisible property)	Jason: SBP value is too speculative here (unknown retirement date, premiums, survivorship, remarriage); equitable factors support denial	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in denying SBP given equitable factors and substitution of life insurance; even if SBP were marital property, denial was within discretion

In re Marriage of Lipkin, 208 Ill. App. 3d 214 (Ill. App. Ct.) (recognized SBP as a property interest in a context where pension value was fixed)
In re Marriage of Moore, 251 Ill. App. 3d 41 (Ill. App. Ct.) (treated survivor benefit as property with determinable value using life‑expectancy tables)
Smithberg v. Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund, 192 Ill. 2d 291 (Ill. 2000) (noting death benefit similar to SBP is a distinct property interest that vests upon final dissolution judgment)
In re Marriage of Abrell, 236 Ill. 2d 249 (Ill. 2010) (future, speculative benefits may be excluded from divisible marital property)
Kew v. Kew, 198 Ill. App. 3d 61 (Ill. App. Ct.) (upholding trial court’s refusal to value surviving‑spouse annuity when valuation assumptions were uncertain)
In re Marriage of DeRossett, 173 Ill. 2d 416 (Ill. 1996) (standard of review: asset division will be disturbed only for clear abuse of discretion)