In re Marriage of Ruvola
2017 IL App (2d) 160737
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Leonard and Michelle Ruvola married in 1989; two adult children. Leonard (petitioner) filed for dissolution in March 2014 and sought maintenance; Michelle (respondent) earns income from The Standard Companies, a family-owned business.
- Parties stipulated before trial that Leonard “is not disabled” and “is not unemployable but is capable of employment.” The trial court issued a September 2015 order requiring Leonard to seek full‑time work and submit a weekly job‑search diary and applications.
- Michelle petitioned for contempt in October 2015, alleging Leonard failed to comply with the job‑search order; the contempt petition was held until the dissolution trial.
- At the December 2015 trial, the court awarded Leonard permanent maintenance, computed under the amended statutory guidelines, but reduced the guideline amount by (1) imputing $25,000 annual income to Leonard for voluntary underemployment, (2) citing Leonard’s ability to meet expenses since separation, and (3) considering property awarded to Leonard—resulting in $2,400/month maintenance.
- The court also adjudicated Leonard in indirect civil contempt for violating the job‑search order, set purge conditions, and awarded Michelle $2,000 in fees. Leonard moved to reconsider; the motion was denied. He appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Leonard) Argument | Respondent (Michelle) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court omitted all sources of Michelle’s income when calculating guideline maintenance | Trial court failed to include Michelle’s weekly $255 “gift” checks from her father in gross income | Court included salary and some fringe benefits but (per respondent) properly accounted for income for maintenance | Court: Trial court erred — gifts are income; remand to include $13,260/year gift checks in respondent’s gross income |
| Whether court properly imputed $25,000/year income to Leonard for voluntary underemployment | Leonard argued his job search was genuine and mental‑health issues impeded his search; stipulation that he is not disabled does not preclude showing psychiatric impediments short of disability | Michelle argued Leonard failed to seek work consistent with his background, engaged in sparse job searching, and disobeyed court order | Court: No abuse of discretion. Sufficient evidence of voluntary underemployment and lack of earnest job search to support imputation of $25,000/year |
| Whether appellate court has jurisdiction to review trial court’s contempt adjudication | Leonard did not list the contempt finding in his notice of appeal; he sought reversal of dissolution aspects | Michelle argued appeal should be limited to orders specified in the notice; contempt was not specified | Court: Lacks jurisdiction to review contempt finding because the notice of appeal did not fairly encompass that collateral ruling |
| Whether petitioner’s trust account was nonmarital (gift) and whether trial court erred in classifying/dividing it and finding dissipation | Leonard argued the account was nonmarital (gift/exclusive control) and should not have been divided or deemed dissipated | Michelle relied on parties’ pretrial stipulation and trial record treating accounts as marital; argued Leonard forfeited the new theory | Court: Leonard forfeited the argument by not raising it at trial (raised first on reconsideration); affirmed classification, division, and dissipation finding |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (Ill. 2004) (gifts from a parent to a payor spouse constitute income for support calculations)
- Burtell v. First Charter Service Corp., 76 Ill. 2d 427 (Ill. 1979) (notice of appeal must specify judgment or be fairly construed; governs appellate jurisdictional review)
- In re Marriage of O’Brien, 2011 IL 109039 (Ill. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for imputation of income; appellate review limits)
- People v. Patrick, 2011 IL 111666 (Ill. 2011) (distinguishes jurisdictional notice defects from form defects; prejudice analysis)
- Evanston Ins. Co. v. Riseborough, 2014 IL 114271 (Ill. 2014) (arguments raised first in motion to reconsider are forfeited on appeal)