*1
test are
(1974).)
polygraph
The results of a
Accordingly we find that no error was committed judgment cause and the of conviction entered the Circuit Court of County Tazewell affirmed.
Affirmed.
STOUDER, STENGEL, J., J., P. concur. LEONE, LEONE, Plaintiff-Appellant, EVELYN v. HARVEY Defendant- J. Appellee. Third District No. 75-116 Opinion filed June
ALLOY, dissenting. J., Perona, appellant. Jr., Spring Valley, for
Paul Lannon, counsel), appellee. Lannon, (R. for & of La Salle Herbolsheimer J. opinion of the court: the Mr. STENGEL delivered JUSTICE granting a decree County entered of La Salle The Circuit Court Harvey Leone. defendant Leone a divorce from plaintiff Evelyn J. any property denying her the trial court’s order appeals Plaintiff appeals Plaintiff solely by in assets owned defendant. cross-appeals month, and defendant per award of alimony attorney’s fees. from the award of and parents of two in 1946 and are Plaintiff defendant were married time of home at the children, living away from of whom were adults both *250saved had had and defendant savings Plaintiff divorce. was marriage defendant they married. After at the time father, and by plaintiff*s in the elevator business employed *12,000. in 1951 for death, the business purchased he after father’s plaintiff had worked outside pinchase Prior to the couple’s until second periods years more than two totaling home for time about during totaled earnings child was bom in 1951.Her she did In 1956 time at the elevator where part returned work major participated bookkeeping, prepared reports, Occasionally opened she involving decisions the business. office, stopped She work at up weighed grain, and did other work. again work but resumed when the left home elevator averaged about pay has no this work which 1973.She received for marriage took care Throughout years. hours week family managed the help, with outside family home no manner. pooled earnings all of their thrifty parties finances The purposes. used both and business savings a common fund from an gift received a from her mother and inheritance aunt, pool of funds. placed which were also common Using profits savings, expanded business business was 1951and 1971 of additional land and erection purchase between bonds, real buildings. of new The also invested stocks and estate. with defendant as incorporated secretary. In addition to her president plaintiff serving corporate labor, personal funds and contributed her share of the rental *3 piece income and her share jointly property from one of owned elevator proceeds the from sale of common fund. of stock the business, long ranging Defendant worked hours in the from 60 to and physical, hours in Much his work was busy week the season. expanded management. under his greatly the volume of business was storing grain, Besides sells seed and drying business now personal largely responsible fertilizer. His efforts been have growth success business. divorce, jthe having
At the assets a total time of owned value *444,150. deposit stock and a certificate of owned shares of *4,500 parties jointly with a in her owned some value name alone. stock, accounts, residence, parcel shares of bank in of real one corporation, estate which was rented to the elevator one-half Canada, *108,000. in island in a total an all of value grain companies, title his in Defendant held in name alone shares two having property, including one-half interest value other building, in an elevator airplane, policies, life insurance in notes, *71,600 property The total value of promissory value. *331,600. adjusted gross income defendant’s name Defendant’s was 1972; *35,300 1971; purposes tax evidence, After all awarded hearing per month alimony plus alone, assets owned and a one-half share in assets, all the except owned property. Because buildings on were essential to the elevator trial court found that defendant special had a equity, and ordered convey her interest to defendant upon payment to her of *5,000.The court found that had equities in defendant’s property arising from the savings she brought to the marriage and her gift, inheritance and *7,000. the amount of The court also ordered pay plaintiff’s attorney’s *4,250. fees in the sum of Plaintiff’sprimary contention appeal is that the trial court erred refusing to recognize the property defendant in excess of
The statutory provision which authorizes a court to divide equitably (Ill. 1975, 40, Stat. Rev. ch. par. 18) is as follows:
“Whenever a is granted, divorce if it appear shall to the court party either holds the title to equitably belonging to other, may the court compel conveyance thereof to be made to party same, entitled to the such terms as it shall deem equitable.”
In applying
provision
particular
circumstances of a
case, it has
spouse
been held that the
seeking part
or all of the property
in the name of the
allege
other must
prove
that he or she has furnished
valuable consideration such as money or services other than those
normally performed in
marriage
relation
directly
which has
or
indirectly been used to acquire or enhance the value of the property.
Everett v.
(1962),
Everett
201;
185 N.E.2d
Alvarado
(3d
Alvarado
1974),
Dist.
22 Ill. App. 3d
“[W]here additional interests in her husband’s than such as attack to wife, her status as a such as where her comes into the hands title; of her husband and invested real estate to which he holds realty represents or if joint earnings, work or savings of husband wife; if earnings savings gone or her or his possession into estate; and aided him in the real acquiring may the court then decree, relation, properly dissolving marriage when *4 wife shall be vested with title in fee to such as realty will effect an equitable adjustment and fair of the rights parties. of the [Citations.]” Cross,
In Supreme Court reversed the trial court and found the wife conveyance to be entitled to a of her one-half interest the marital home because of her income from her contributions derived
551 good family, her gifts cash from employment, outside 1974), Accord, (3d Dist. Gerhardt Gerhardt v. frugality. management 658, 3d 310 N.E.2d App. 18 Ill. here, plaintiff
According to the evidence before as weU as money to the marital funds personal contributed she has marriage. Thereafter earnings early years saved the pay which in the business without performed personal services hiring estimated the cost employee. a clerical Defendant expense of participated She this *50to week. has also someone to do work at *100 has served as savings, and to invest expand the decisions business cosigned business loans. The corporation, of the and has officer father, sold by plaintiff’s apparently itself was was business started although family relationship, price defendant at a lower because that, when point. is the latter Defendant conflicting evidence testified parties gave any thought to who acquired, the assets were never legal title, they as assets should hold considered received, business, money including profits All both. that both income, income, by defendant plaintiff*s was considered investment expenses partially to be the of both and was used for household 1951, part put family expenses back business. Beginning into the consistently than income so that the excess funds were available less Clearly, all of of the business well as other investments. parties through the assets of the of both were accumulated efforts greater personal husband and wife. The fact that defendant made a management enterprise contribution to the operation justify recognize equities does refusal business assets in defendant’s held name. trial court in the jointly awarded her one-half interest property, having alimony a value of and an allowance of
*1,500per argued alimony actually represents month. It is award in plaintiff’s her interest and that is best interest to allotment than to cash burden generous alimony impose rather receive minority give ownership on defendant’s business or to her a corporation. fails alimony
We believe to consider the distinction between view (1st As special equities property. noted v. Palacio Palacio 1074, 427, 33 Ill. 1975), App. 3d 339 N.E.2d is Dist. conditional support spouse’s present one and future need for and the other’s (Norris 879, pay (5th 1974), App. v. Norris 16 Ill. 3d ability to Dist. 307 181), and separate right N.E.2d from the which arises Neumark, Property See past contributions to marital estate. Divorce, (1974). Ill. B. Rights in J. In Savich Savich *5 552
owned a home in joint tenancy, part and a of the payment down came savings to which the wife had contributed. Supreme Court said: plaintiff had sought partition a premises, of the
“[I]f to which she 0 0 0 would have been entitled as a right matter of and which in way would no impaired her right additional alimony, to a court would properly cognizance have taken only of the portion gift that was a plaintiff, to but of her contribution through savings her earnings.” sole 12 Ill. 2d The court then held that the trial court its abused discretion when required the wife to pay the husband his one-half of equity home without recognizing her equity contribution to the right her to a settlement lieu of alimony. bar,
In the case at monthly award for is contingent upon plaintiff remaining unmarried and defendant’s continuing ability pay. If defendant predecease should retire or plaintiff, her alimony income would Although cease. a conveyance may be ordered in alimony (Cross Cross), lieu of the reverse obviously would be to deny detriment and would her security the financial her station in life should include. We believe that a monthly alimony plaintiff’s special award lieu of owned was an improper equitable powers exercise of the court. plaintiff
We hold that has clearly convincingly established her equitable right to an interest in defendant’s assets with commensurate her contributions business services and funds he acquired during marriage. The evidence in plaintiff the record indicates that made contributions to the common marital funds including savings, gifts, her earnings, outside work for the salary corporate secretary, her one-half rent from the and her one-half proceeds from a 1972 sale of stock. funds These thus increased the available for business and other investments, and plaintiff is entitled to equities equal to the amount of her contribution. that,
Illinois long recognized courts have where a husband purchases property places with his funds and in joint tenancy title with his wife, gift will presumed. (Baker be v. Baker 107 Thus, 711.) may special equities wife in her husband’s property jointly property. addition to her one-half interest Savich; (Savich v. (1st 1971), Glassman v. Dist. Ill. App. Glassman 608, (abstract opinion).) bar, N.E.2d 252 In joint the case at tenancy property purchased with common marital funds to which record, both On defendant had contributed. the basis of joint tenancy property represents we find that the mutual undertakings jointly invested belonging to both whereby funds share of Therefore, plaintiffs one-half conclude we consent. common actual contribution part tenancy property represents the sum of funds, Subtracting having a value the marital contribution, has established placing In to avoid property. order in defendant’s should we believe defendant position, cash burden on defendant’s undue payable over *56,000 monthly installments pay plaintiff required rate, with months, present statutory interest at of 121 period full amount property until the against defendant’s have lien paid. plaintiff contends property,
As to the
owned elevator
*6
special
in the
equities
in
his
allege
pleadings
failed to
the
defendant
to him
convey
to
building which she was ordered
owned
*5,000.
rule,
general
require
special
As
Illinois courts
payment of
a
spouse
from one
to
conveyance
property
of
justifying
circumstances
Ill. 2d
proved.
Ylonen Ylonen
alleged
another must
111,
The record here does not indicate Moreover, question in parties placed trial court. the issue the where it proof, their we believe respective property rights, of and have offered preferable remedy any to to technical defect in the allow defendant pleadings (Cf. pleadings by proof. an amendment to conform the defendant, Gerhardt.) Accordingly, application Gerhardt v. of we to permitted filing complaint, the an answer the amended of Supreme (Ill. Court Rule 362 Stat. pursuant authority our under Rev. to 1975, 110A, 362). par. ch. alleges special equities answer filed defendant’s
The stating the disputed buildings that have been erected on property, buildings integral part that are an of property by corporation and Taking allegation proved, this as elevator business. defendant special any has nevertheless failed to establish plaintiff convey her interest to him. The justify ordering which would to conclusion apparently trial court reached same when ordered *5,000 corporation Since pay to her interest. the elevator defendant, inequitable pays require annual rent to it seems most to convey that showing to her interest for There was no ownership plaintiffs continuing joint of land would interfere with allowing ownership her to retain would entitle operations, Therefore, conclude that to the rental income. we the order one-half conveyance should be reversed. requiring title to the trial court’s decision to leave parties dispute do not and, possession long in so tenancy the marital home in possession, she remains she is to pay expenses, all including mortgage payments, except that defendant must reimburse her one-half payment amount each the principal reduces of the loan. We note that the trial mistakenly that it any assumed lacked to jurisdiction order conveyance of joint-tenancy interests between the absence special above, of a finding of As equities. conveyance we stated property may (Ill. be ordered under section 18 of the Divorce Act Rev. 40, par. 19), Stat. alimony, any ch. in lieu separate apart special equities under (Ill. section 17 Divorce Act Rev. Stat. ch. par. 18). (See Nevertheless, (1974).) nothing we find B.J. inherently inequitable awarding trial court’s order to party each one-half in all jointly than property, other the elevator above, portion discussed and that is the decree affirmed. We agree also to party each entitled held his or her own name, except extent of plaintiff’s equities defendant’s business holdings.
Defendant also claims that pay is more able to attorney’s fees of than he Since an attorney’s is. award for fees is court, matter within the sound discretion the trial and since defendant was the fault in party at cannot proceeding, say divorce we trial court its abused case. discretion requested in her gross either or increase monthly alimony monthly, cross-appealed, and defendant asking *1,000 monthly Having for a alimony. reduction held that plaintiff is entitled to property, defendant’s support ability pay need and defendant’s are both materially apportionment affected interests. After *7 record, carefully reviewing the find monthly alimony payments we that of plaintiffs will be sufficient for needs.
We of the trial court which parts therefore reverse those the order of above, improper, entry as indicated and remand of a decree for consistent expressed with the views herein. part;
Affirmed in reversed in part; remanded.
STOUDER, J., P. concurs. ALLOY, dissenting:
Mr. JUSTICE forth, in majority I in agree part, do not with the conclusions set opinion in that the trial opinion. majority I with the agree conclusions adjacent parcel grain land to the decreeing court erred in that of by Harvey Leone company, purchased since wife, and his purposes, tenancy by Harvey Leone and owned 555 of upon payment conveyed Harvey be to Leone required should be to that order I in the conclusion to for her interest. concur be Harvey Leone should conveyance property a requiring of majority in the I set forth agree with the conclusions reversed. attorney’s by fees defendant. opinion requiring payment of question of allowance My disagreement basic area of involves asserted reason of certain plaintiff by substantial sums of plaintiff. performed by services virtually has Harvey
It is clear that defendant Leone record day, and worked 10 hours a exclusively devoted to the himself seasons in the week, During seasons. busier days during or 6 the slow Much of day. 16 hours a and fall he worked between spring physical work consisted of labor. of the new development
Plaintiff Evelyn Leone also contributed period an of about 10 horas week spent average forms, chores, filling report State years, doing bookkeeping out various performed husband. She also discussing business decisions children, housewife, ran the and raised the her usual duties as household was the family overseer of the finances. major expressed by plaintiff The arises from the trial court’s concern any special refusal to equities find favor by (other majority than the referred to comprised 75% opinion). joint tenancy, The about thereof, owned, in a holdings major portion of the total parties, by defendant, including Leone Grain Company. 98%of the stock of that she an interest in some of defendant’s argues equitable has property by helping of her contributions to the business reason various work doing to make business decisions and a certain without amount compensation, accepting personally parcel as well no rent asserts, also, always pooled land. She their assets owned, regardless actually who considered all be court, however, “plaintiff legal held found does not title. of defendant virtue of further house, maintaining performing the court finds to duties what children, work the husband’s business.” raising clerical within concerned, presented In the with which we are the facts cause s contributions to conflicting picture somewhat as to extent of wealth, expected that outside of which is to come from doing It relationship. appear marital some work for the does decision-making processes, she made company helping not, however, It success of the business. does “extra” contribution record, contribution, substantial as to on the was so appear *8 give by her a interest equitable substantial I
husband. do not say believe we can that the trial court acted contrary to the evidence in its finding on presented. the facts
In majority opinion, principal basis for the conclusion that there *110,000 was a by plaintiff, contribution *56,000 so as to vest her with a equity, *54,000 in addition to the interest, value tenancy arises from a computation which does not appear by be sustained the record. It appears that it is concluded that she is entitled to be rewarded for clerical work for the business over a 17-year period at *75per week for a *68,000 total of and with the payment of one-half of the rental of the jointly owned property years at The net worth of the Leone Grain Company is only according total of to the record. It is by established the record that defendant clearly put an excess of 10 times the amount of time devoted to the plaintiff. Also, the record indicates that payments the rental went either to the business or the benefit of the family.
The trial court did not find plaintiffs contribution entitled her to special equities, but the trial decree, court in fact attempted, by the to do justice substantial between the by establishing a comparatively high alimony payment *1,500per month for a per year. total of The total net amount as court, fixed the trial is substantially the same as the total benefit to defendant suggested in This majority opinion. indicates that any equitable interest plaintiff might which defendant, owned by appears to be more than adequately represented by the per year which would receive periodic alimony, year, each barring also modification. The court concluded that paid represents she would be a standard of living to which she became chiefly accustomed from efforts of the defendant in building & the Leone Grain Supply Company into the thriving it apparently outfit It today. appears that the trial court concluded that the business should not by giving plaintiff be disturbed percentage ownership in reducing (and the stock and alimony payments also presumably by requiring sum pay specific based concept on a of special equities, as a substitute of the for some payments). The court apparently felt that would not be the best parties. interest of either of the defendant, court, in his in this that the award argument contended
represents spendable 57%of defendant’s 1973 net income even more percentage average spendable on a basis of net income over previous years. five conclude,
Therefore, that, provision of the exception I with the of the relating requirement plaintiff convey decree buildings grain joint ownership upon of the land which the constructed, the decree of the circuit elevator business have been that there should agree opinion I the majority should be affirmed. the land which the joint ownership continuation of *9 constructed, the trial court’s been I believe that business has but relating question issue disposition the basic equitable disposition on basis special equities represents proper the case. that it does substantial the record and noted, trial court should I decree of the exception With the believe the be affirmed. al., al., PEORIA et RUSSELLDAVIS et OF Plaintiffs-Appellants,
THE CITY Defendants-Appellees.
Third District No. 75-94 Opinion filed June Counsel, Mihm, Teplitz, Corporation Attorney, M. B. Michael State’s Jack Peoria, appellants.
both of Silberstein, Peoria, appellees. L. Robert opinion STOUDER Mr. PRESIDING delivered JUSTICE court: violating Davis, persons charged were with Jr.,
Russell two other Case (Peoria Circuit Court prohibiting gambling State statutes activities. 4478-74 OV combined Numbers CM 4461-74 OV 4470-74OV granted Pursuant 94.) as case number to leave appellate court 75— 75-6, court case Number appeal argued appellate was briefed and involving but having grown gambling the same raid the latter case out of However, pending will the cases review only city ordinance violations. individually. The decision in the decided be discussed and appealed. People in favor of the defendants and by a motion initially challenged statutory charges State