In Re Marriage of Schinelli, 942 N.E.2d 682

This is the second appeal from a 25-year marriage dissolution in Du Page County, where the trial court divided marital assets evenly, included a dissipation charge of $26,273 against Bruce, and ordered Cecily permanent maintenance of $6,692/month plus supplemental maintenance based on Bruce’s income.
Bruce appealed the permanent maintenance amount, the supplemental maintenance cap, and the dissipation finding; the first appeal affirmed permanent maintenance but limited supplemental maintenance and affirmed some dissipation findings, remanding on remaining dissipation for further proof.
On remand, the trial court issued three orders: attorney-fee contribution to Cecily, a dissipation ruling on $17,919, and a QDRO related to the Wachovia 401(k) retirement account.
Bruce challenged the $15,000 attorney-fee award as unsupported by evidence of Cecily’s inability to pay and for not demonstrating substantial prevailing party status, the $17,919 dissipation finding, and the QDRO’s allocation after market loss.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding Bruce did not dissipate funds and that the QDRO improperly shifted all Wachovia 401(k) losses to Bruce, warranting a consisent remand with a corrected QDRO.
The case requires determining whether the attorney-fee award was proper, whether Bruce dissipated the disputed funds, and how the Wachovia 401(k) losses should be allocated under the dissolution judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Attorney-fee award proper?	Bruce argues the award was against the weight of the evidence.	Cecily contends the award was proper given Bruce’s appeals of multiple issues.	The award was reversed; Bruce did not prove Cecily unable to pay.
Dissipation of $17,919 proven by clear and convincing evidence?	Bruce presented detailed transactions showing spending from joint funds for marital and family needs.	Cecily argues Bruce failed to show how funds were spent and that there were other withdrawals by Cecily.	The finding of dissipation was against the manifest weight; Bruce did not dissipate assets.
Proper QDRO allocation after market loss?	The QDRO should allocate as per the dissolution order; Bruce bears all Wachovia losses if forced to pay more.	Cecily contends the QDRO correctly transferred $152,522 irrespective of market fluctuations.	QDRO reversed; reallocate per dissolution order (50.7% Bruce, 49.3% Cecily) based on current value.
Does any remediation require reevaluation of other retirement assets when Wachovia was adjusted?	Bruce’s case for not reevaluating other assets to avoid unfair cross-subsidization.	Cecily argues proper reevaluation is unnecessary absent a marital settlement agreement.	No broader reevaluation required; focus limited to Wachovia 401(k) consistent with dissolution.

In re Marriage of Gutman, 232 Ill.2d 145 (2008) (finality and Rule 304(a) considerations for postjudgment orders)
In re Marriage of Alyassir, 335 Ill.App.3d 998 (2003) (jurisdiction over postjudgment fee issues)
In re Marriage of Duggan, 376 Ill.App.3d 725 (2007) (fee-shifting and appealability principles in postjudgment matters)
In re Marriage of Carrier, 332 Ill.App.3d 654 (2002) (fixed share vs. fluctuating market value in QDRO context)
In re Marriage of Brenner, 235 Ill.App.3d 840 (1992) (revaluation requirements for property divisions)
In re Marriage of Rubinstein, 145 Ill.App.3d 31 (1986) (remand for reevaluation where improper asset values affect division)
In re Marriage of Vancura, 356 Ill.App.3d 200 (2005) (dissipation burden to show expenditures by clear and convincing evidence)
In re Marriage of Petrovich, 154 Ill.App.3d 881 (1987) (need for specific evidence beyond generic claims of marital expenditures)