2011 IL App (1st) 100622
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Teresa Kic and William Bianucci married on August 29, 1987; the Shaker Ct. home and State Farm office were marital assets encumbered by substantial liens from William's criminal restitution.
- William was incarcerated for bank fraud (2003) and later released (2007); a durable power of attorney gave Teresa control of finances (2004), later revoked (2006).
- The couple's child, Robert, was born May 13, 2003; temporary custody and support orders were entered in 2006; mediation resulted in joint custody arrangement (2008).
- The dissolution trial began November 18, 2008; William appeared pro se; discovery and pleadings were amended during trial.
- On September 8, 2009, the court dissolved the marriage, reserving child support and distributing property with dissipation findings against Teresa; Teresa moved to reconsider (October 2009).
- The trial court ultimately denied most reconsideration relief; Teresa appeals to challenge discovery, pleadings, refinance period, custody-related rulings, and dissipation finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substitution of judge denied proper grounds | Kic; improper denial of substitution of judge | Bianucci; denial was proper given pretrial proceedings | Denial affirmed; no reversible error |
| Reopening discovery and amending pleadings after trial began | Kic contends abuse of discretion allowing discovery and amendments | Bianucci; trial court has broad discretion to reopen discovery | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Extension to respond to requests to admit facts | Kic argues extension was improper | Bianucci; good cause shown; extension proper | Affirmed; extension proper under Rule 183 |
| Residential parent designation and child-support/education/activities orders | Kic argues trial court failed to name residential parent and set costs | Bianucci; record shows joint residential responsibilities and extensive consideration | Affirmed; court did not abuse discretion in disposition and rulings on child-related issues |
| Dissipation finding and date of irretrievable breakdown | Kic contends dissipation date not specified and finding against weight of evidence | Bianucci; evidence supports dissipation and breakdown date implied by record | Affirmed; dissipation finding and timing not against manifest weight of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Wade, 408 Ill.App.3d 775 (2011) (reservations and bifurcation considerations in dissolution cases)
- In re Marriage of Cohn, 93 Ill.2d 190 (1982) (appropriate circumstances for reserving custody/support in dissolution)
- Shumak v. Shumak, 30 Ill.App.3d 188 (1975) (posttrial issues review in civil cases; forfeiture rules customary)
- City of Chicago v. Mid-City Laundry Co., 8 Ill.App.3d 88 (1972) (forfeiture and posttrial motion considerations in civil matters)
- In re Marriage of Sanfratello, 393 Ill.App.3d 641 (2009) (dissipation may be considered sua sponte in dissolution cases)
- In re Marriage of Berger, 357 Ill.App.3d 651 (2005) (manifest weight standard and appellate review of dissolution orders)