In re Marriage of Zamudio
155 N.E.3d 1096
Ill.2020Background
- Frank Ochoa served in the U.S. Air Force (1974–1980) and later worked for the Illinois State Police beginning in 1989; he and Louise married in 2000 and separated in 2014.
- The parties paid $4,813.20 in 2006 and $4,813.20 in 2011 (marital funds) to purchase 48 months of permissive military service credit under the Illinois Pension Code.
- Frank retired in August 2011 with 320 months of service credit, including 48 months of permissive military credit; the purchased credit increased his monthly annuity by $1,363.33 (disputed half = $681.67).
- Trial court initially classified the credit as marital, then reversed and treated it as nonmarital but ordered reimbursement for Louise’s share of the contributions.
- The appellate court held the permissive credit was marital because it was acquired when purchased during the marriage with marital funds; the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for equitable apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Zamudio) | Defendant's Argument (Ochoa) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permissive pension service credit purchased during marriage based on pre-marriage military service is marital or nonmarital property | Credit is marital because the permissive service credit was acquired when purchased during the marriage with marital funds | Credit is nonmarital because it derives from Frank’s pre-marriage military service; marital payments only enhanced a nonmarital asset (reimbursement appropriate) | Held marital: under 40 ILCS 5/14-104(j) the credit is acquired only after statutory requirements (including payment) are met; payments were made during marriage, so credit is marital property |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Ramsey, 339 Ill. App. 3d 752 (2003) (addressing whether pension enhancements are derivative of a pension right or directly attributable to nonmarital contributions)
- Michigan Avenue Nat’l Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493 (2000) (courts must follow plain statutory language in statutory construction)
- In re Ryan B., 212 Ill. 2d 226 (2004) (use dictionary/ordinary meaning when statute omits definition)