*1 regard applicability equitable estoppel the case distinction any is of its decision support unclear. The court does cite authorities similarly point, city’s appeal on and on this brief devoid support proposition distinction authorities which that the between wages fringe our Although benefits is determinative. we have doubts distinction, concerning relevancy we feel accumulated sick pay, wages, pay, closely leave like eаrned vacation more resembles v. (See Olson Rock Island compensation, fringe deferred than benefits. Rank 39; v. Cummings Chicago, N.E.2d Elgin Ry. Aurora & 537,109 Co. 378.) There can dispute no case sick instant leave was earned.
AE we have decided in this оf equitable case is that the doctrine estoppel plaintiffs available their endeavor to recover ac- pay. cumulated sick leave Whether article of the Agreement accurately reflects the regarding terms the oral contract sick pay, leave does, plaintiffs successfuEy whether can utilize estoppel questions enforce the terms of article to be resolved trial court at a on the merits. reasons,
Fоr foregoing Circuit Court of County TazeweE is reversed and remanded for trial.
Reversed and remanded. STQUDER, SCOTT, P. J., concur. J., DONLEY, MARRIAGE OF L. Petitioner-Appellant, DENNIS DONLEY,
MARILYN A. Respondent-Appellee. Third No. District 79-377 Opinion April BARRY, J., specially concurring. Cover, Peoria, L. appellant.
David Peoria, Trager, appellee. H. Thomas *2 opinion Mr. STENGEL delivered of the the court: JUSTICE 11 petitioner of L. years marriage, Donley after Dennis Marilyn A. complaint Donley, for divorce from and in of a June of Illinois Marriage the effective date the new аnd Dissolution of after 101 (Ill. par. Act Stat. ch. seq.), hearing Rev. et a was solely grounds dissolving determine whether existed for the to dissolving marriage trial court entered an order the and marriage. The custody temporary parties’ Marilyn. of three children to the giving Thereafter, questions support, was held to determine hearing a maintenance, custody. child property, and The court filed division forth opinion setting in considerable detail its 10-page memorandum presented. to the numerous issues as decision children, custody of who the time of the Marilyn given the at was 8,7, 2 years, support was child aged and and she awarded hearing were family all of furniture child. also was awarded the per per $35 weеk She $69,000 home, subject at and to a family valued appliances and the and $8,000. lien in favor of Dennis $15,000 to a The latter mortgage and lien to mother which he had contributed inheritance from his represented an $8,000 repay the within two Marilyn must the home. purchase of the by the refinancing mortgage. sale or of a proceeds either years, tenancy. joint previously been held home had The 13 years, worker for employed a sheet metal had been Dеnnis $24,000 pension annually, and has contributed to a union earning about 2 years, for rights will not be vested more years. pension 8 fund for His was entitled to return did not know whether he that he and he testified employment his his before paid in he terminates hаd amount he that the assets invested trial court found The pension rights are vested. opinion In its the court stated property. fund were and recognized must be portion of the Marilyn’s claim to a that upon her to as credit would be аllocated share of the her did not furniture. The court and household in the marital home equity was allocated. Dennis so rights assign a dollar value radio, CB all hand projector, and camera shotgun, movie awarded effects, аnd a records, personal tools, clothing and his phonograph wag- 1976 station Ford Torino Marilyn given was pickup 1975 truck. prior parties by the all debts incurred to assume on. was ordered Dennis except mortgage on the marriagе to dissolution of for Both the purchase wagon. and debt of the station home by Marilyn. small paid parties’ are to mortgage the car loan checking savings policy insurance were awarded accounts a life to Dennis.
Marilyn marriage previously did was not work request was employed receptionist. as a for maintenance doctor’s Her by proper” disposition denied the court as “not meet and view of the to Finally, parties. between the Dennis ordered $500 Marilyn attorney’s toward her fees.
Upon appeal from the providing distribution property, Dennis contends the trial court abused its discretion awarding Marilyn the marital home there was no as to the when evidenсe rights value which in the form of were allocated her equity the home. In re
A Court, recent Appellate decision the First District 653, 659, 511, 516, App. 3d holds that property “regardless are marital of whether matured, or or non contributory contributory.” This essentially adopted holding decision has a similar case of 838, 544 Brown the California Cal. Marital Property, Tax Kalcheim, Rptr. Cal. See also *3 Ramifications, Marriage and Maintenance: the Practice Under Illinois Dissolutiоn Act—A Marriage Comparative Study, 324, 66 Ill. 325 of B.J. (1978). the
In distinguishing court, pensions, in nonvested the Brown citing decision, said that: ‘ * * * pensions “Retirement are not not gratuities, “do derive
from the employer, beneficence the but properly part are the e * by «*/”*<» employee consideration earned the [TJreating a pension community property justified by nonvested interest as decades, the pension fact past have benefits ‘[o]ver increasingly become аn significant part of the earned consideration by employee for his vesting services’ and the date of ‘[a]s approaches, retirement right grows the value of the until it represents often the most important asset of the mаrital (Brown, 838, 847, 561, 566, 15 community.’ 126 Cal. 3d 633, 653, 511, Cal. Rptr. 638.)” 660-61, 78 Ill. 397 N.E.2d App. 3d 517.
In considering problem determining the value the court said in Hunt: rights,
“It is true placing present profit- on value or on a sharing may difficult, if, case, particularly they inas However, in are not an have matured. difficulties valuation including profit-sharing insurmountable barrier interest, matured, whether vested or as marital 653, 662-63, property.” 78 Ill. 519. App. 3d N.E.2d 511, In Olsher v. Olsher 78 Ill. 3d apportioned property parties trial court of the without closely evidence as to of four shares of stock in a the value corporation. reviewing court reversed and remanded for a deter- mination stating: of stock value after value, in find that the absence of evidence of the stock's
“[WJe property trial court’s division of the was an abuse discretion. Clearly, respective without evidence of the values the various court property impossible items of the marital was for the required by in property “justproportiоn’ divide the marital 627, 636, 488, 495.) statute.” 78 Ill. 397 N.E.2d In have to another recent case it was said that the court does not of marital specific findings make of fact as to the value of each item supplemental property dispute, reviewing but in court that case the (In property question. opinion appraisal went on to order an 17.) 398 N.E.2d Thompson (1979), App. 3d necessary despite Obviously of valuation was deemed a determination discussion of cases see language contrary. For a these (Dec. 1979). 133-36 Family Report Law necessary in order to property our view valuation marital parties awarded just apportionment except where the
reach a particular itеm. See Hunt and Brown. percentage interests here trial court the case opinion The memorandum of factors given fuU to all those relevant indicates that consideration Illinois and Dissolution specified in of the section However, 503(c)). par. ch. (Ill. Act Stat. Rev. Marilyn in lieu of her interest equity in marital home to award of of the receiving evidence of the value pension, Dennis’ without reverse and We therefore rights, was an abuse of the court’s discretion. of the value this cause for a determination remand with the in accordance and an division statutory requirements. and remanded.
Reversed
SCOTT, J., concurs. BARRY, specially concurring: Mr. JUSTICE here, opinion of I find the required I is agree While that remandment unsatisfactory. majority to be clearly rights record that husband’s were reflects with I stoutly disagree because 511, Pieper In re (1979), App. 3d (1979), 79 Ill. lack of regard 398 N.E.2d with to a I distinction rights, between vested and nonvested believe the recognizе vesting determining trial court must the merit the value my rights property position as or It is property. rights which property right must have some attribute of an indefeasible life, death, illness, subject not or to uncertainties continued employment property. in order property consequently to be sorts, pension rights but it is not perhaps
Nonvested resources they pensioner they quality until and if do take on are received compensation past as employee. deferred services an Nonvested pension rights contingent speculative are too to be classified as property. (In Ellis 234,538 Colo. P.2d and Ellis v. Ellis 506.) Forcing Colo. the trial court to attempt speculative to value purely pension right which has only possible being chance of ever appears received to me to be an impossible burden and futile I task the trial court. believe therefore rights court here should not include the nonvested the husband this property. case as marital aforesaid, I As do agree necessary, that a remandment but for a purpose majority other than what the suggests, pension rights because the involved are not pension plan vested. Thе present case is a contributory to which Mr. Donley one has contributed. Therefore even though pension rights may those are not he have an indefeasible property right to the return of pension plan his contribution to the made marriage. Though such refund of his own contribution does possible not cause benefits of the to nonvested be marital property, I recognize nevertheless property right a marital contribution and to may immediately the extent that he demand and returned, have so long satisfy as he future need conditions contingencies.
A remandment then is for the purpose determining whether he has an absolute property right presently indefeasible to demand his сontributions, as well as determining the amount of those contributions to pension plan during the If marriage. right he such does have contributions, recover equitably the trial court should divide the contributions so received. the event the husband has no indefeasible property contributions, right they and to his I believe take on the speculative and, generally, nature nonvested aforesaid, are not property subject or marital parties. division between the *5 expressed
I with direсtions consistent with the views would remand herein. PARKS, Petitioner-Appellee, MARRIAGE OF LYSOLA ANNA PARKS, Respondent-Appellant.
WILLIE LEE Third District No. 79-483 Opinion April Wallace, Winstein, Kavensky,
Douglas C. S. Scovil and Franklin both Island, Doughty, appellant. & of Rock for Wallace Islаnd, DePorter, appellee. Dennis of Rock for opinion of the Mr. PRESIDING ALLOY delivered JUSTICE court: Circuit Court of appeals from a
Willie Lee Parks decree for of a denying petition modification County Rock Island September On а decree alimony. providing periodic Parks entered, Willie Lee marriage dissolving divorce was 19 years. been couple Anna had married Lysola Parks. Mr. court ordered parties, with agreement accordance an between divorce, alimony. time $40 At the per week Parks to Mrs. Parks Farmall, She Inc. had with layoff job she Mrs. Parks on Since her per $90 week. earning period, worked as domestic