Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
There were no reported opinions this month. Below are some noteworthy Rule 23 Decisions.
- Reviewable maintenance reversed due to permanent maintenance being warranted.In a case where the pretrial litigation lasted almost 5 years, wife, who represented herself at trial, appealed the trial court’s award of two year reviewable maintenance in the amount of $4,500 per month. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the case a “classic” example warranting permanent maintenance. The parties were married for 27½ years, during which the wife was a stay-at-home mom with a GED and no college degree; and she had no employment history and was recently earning $12/hour as a cashier. Husband owned multiple businessesduring the marriage and it was undisputed that the parties had lived a lavish lifestyle historically, although husband’s businesses had gone through a downturn. The trial court was also upheld on the 50/50 division of marital assets, ordering two homes and ancillary business assets sold, and the barring of wife’s untimely expert testimony and report and exhibits. Wife failed to produce her expert report or her exhibits in accordance with the trial court’s trial order. The Court noted the wife had appeared pro se at trial after being represented by six law firms throughout the pretrial litigation, and reiterated the well-settled principle that self-represented litigants are held to the same standards as counsel.Biangardi v. Biangardi, 2025 IL App (1st) 221559-U.
Biangardi v. Biangardi - Language in MSA limited payout on deferred compensation to marital payments only. The First District affirmed the trial court’s interpretation of a marital settlement agreement (MSA) provision requiring husband to pay the wife 50% of future deferred compensation distributions received from his former employer. The court held the MSA unambiguously limited wife’s50% to deferred compensation that was marital property, funds earned during the marriage and paid out post-dissolution. The dispute arose over three payments received in 2018 and 2019 totaling $390,158, which husband argued were non-marital because they were earned after the divorce. The trial court found the 2018 payment was based on 2015 employment (during the marriage) and thus marital, but because the 2019 payments stemmed from post-divorce compensation, they were non-marital. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court’s ruling consistent with contract interpretation principles and not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Part and parcel to the decision was the fact the Court rejected wife’s argument that the MSA language that “any” future deferred compensation included non-marital payments, reasoning such a reading would nullify other provisions limiting the agreement to marital assets.In In re Marriage of Zisook, 2025 IL App (1st) 221834-U.
In re Marriage of Zisook - Trial court’s imputation of income to husband for child support purposes upheld along with several issues pertaining to non-marital property. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s rulings on several key issues involving imputed income and non-marital property characterization. The trial court properly imputed $7,500 in monthly income to husband. He failed to produce credible evidence of his income through documentation and testified his income was between $3,000 and $12,000 per month. Child support was set at $188 per month which was upheld along with shared children’s expense obligations. The wife claimed interests in two non-marital LLCs, which was also upheld given the evidence showed both were capitalized solely with gifts from her father and never commingled with marital assets. Husband claimed ownership in one LLC due to being the registered agent and managing member in the articles of incorporation. However, because he was not listed as an owner in the Operating Agreement, he did not hold an ownership interest. Purusnt to the Illinois LLC Act, a company’s operating agreement, not its articles of organization, dictates membership in an LLC.In re Marriage of Ibrahim, 2025 IL App (1st) 230146-U.
In re Marriage of Ibrahim