Kic v. Bianucci
2011 IL App (1st) 100622
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- Teresa and William married on August 29, 1987 and lived in the Shaker Court home in Cook County, held as tenancy by the entirety and encumbered by a large mortgage and a home equity loan.
- The State Farm office, jointly owned, was also encumbered and generated rental income; a federal lien from William’s criminal restitution attach to both properties.
- Teresa gave William a durable power of attorney in 2004, which he revoked in 2006, while he was incarcerated from 2004 to 2007 for bank fraud crimes.
- The couple’s only child, Robert, was born in 2003; William later engaged in dissipation-related claims and the trial court reserved or determined custodial arrangements.
- Teresa filed for dissolution in 2006; William, then pro se, answered in 2006 and the matter proceeded through pretrial and trial phases with discovery and pleadings ongoing into 2009.
- On September 8, 2009, the circuit court dissolved the marriage, reserving child support, and awarding property interests (Shaker Ct. home to William with refinancing condition; State Farm office to Teresa) while finding dissipation by Teresa and issuing related financial rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Substitution of judge denial on appeal | Teresa argued trial court erred in denying substitution of judge. | William contends forfeiture and proper denial under law. | Denied; denial upheld under discretionary review for this bench trial scenario. |
| Reopening discovery and William’s pleadings | Reopening discovery and allowing pleadings amended after trial began improper. | Court acted within broad discovery discretion; no abuse. | No reversible error; court's conduct affirmed. |
| Extension to respond to request to admit facts | Granting extension for William to respond to admissions was error. | Court properly considered explanations; extension supported by good cause. | No abuse of discretion; extension affirmed. |
| Dissipation and date of irretrievable breakdown | Dissipation finding and date were against manifest weight; date not specified. | Discretion allowed; dissipation supported by record. | Dissipation finding affirmed; no manifest weight error; date not a reversible defect. |
| Residential parent designation and child supportreservation | Court erred in designating residential arrangement and failing to enter child support/education claims. | Court’s bifurcated judgment and factors supported custodial plan; no error. | Court’s bifurcated order and custody framework affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Wade, 408 Ill. App. 3d 775 (Ill. App. 2011) (abuse of discretion in bifurcated custody decisions; preservation equity factors)
- In re Marriage of Cohn, 93 Ill. 2d 190 (1982) (state allowing reservation of ancillary issues upon appropriate circumstances)
- In re Marriage of Sanfratello, 393 Ill. App. 3d 641 (2009) (dissipation may be considered sua sponte regardless of pleadings)
- Westphalen, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1110 (1981) (trial judge comments in bench trial not inherently prejudicial)
- Shumak v. Shumak, 30 Ill. App. 3d 188 (1975) (scope of appellate review in postjudgment civil matters)