Nos. 2—0 9—059 1 & 2 —09—1 160 c ons. Opin ion f il ed January

12, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE APP ELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS SECOND DI STRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ In re MARR

IAGE OF ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court CECIL Y B. SCHINELLI, ) o f D u P ag e C o un t y. ) Petitioner-A

ppelle e, ) ) No. 05—D—915 and ) ) BRUCE G. SCHINELLI, ) Ho no r ab le ) Li n da E. D av en por t, Re sp on den

t-A pp el l an t. ) Judge, Presi din g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE SCH OS TO K delivere d t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Jus t ices Ze noff and Bur ke c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion. OPINI ON T his i s the sec ond a ppea l be f ore this court

re gar ding the dis soluti on of the parties’ ma rriage. On March 16, 2007, the ci

rcuit co urt o f Du Page County en tered an order dissol

vi ng the 25-y

ear ma rriage o f t he pa r t ies , Br uc e a nd Ce cily S ch ine lli. T he t r ial c o ur t di vid ed t he mar it al e st at e e ve nly, fact or ing i n a gai nst Bruce ’ssharea cha rg e fo r d issipat ion in t he am ount of $26,27 3. The

tria l court ordered per manent maintena nce t o C ecily i n t he amo unt of $ 6, 692 per mont h. Addi tional ly , the trial
cou rt ordere d addi

ti ona l mai nte na nc e to C ec i l

y i n th e a moun t of one-third of B ruce’s an

nual gro ss inc o me b etween $200,000 and $650,000 (supplem ental ma in tenance). Bruce appeal

ed from that order. In th e f i rs t ap pe al, B ru ce

argu ed th at th e tr i al cou rt erre d i n (1 ) s etti ng theam ou nt ofNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-2-

per manent maintena nce; ( 2) or der ing suppl em ental ma in tenance;and (3) f

in din g that he di ssi

pated $26,273 in

ma rital ass ets. Th

i s court aff irm ed the trial

court ’s order of perma

nen t mai ntenan ce but reversed the trial court ’s order cappin

g the supplem

ental ma in tenance ran

ge at $650,000 and in

stead capped it at $ 250 ,00 0. As to d

i ss i pa ti on, thi s c ourt af f i rm ed a f i nd i ng of di ss i pa ti on of $2,625; we reversed a fin din g of $5,729; an

d we rema

nded f or a new heari

ng to deter mi

ne wh ether Bruce dis si pated the remai

ni ng $17 , 919 withdrawn

from the parties’ j oint tax-exem pt money -market
ac cou n t. In re Marr

iage of Schine lli , No . 2— 07 —0 61 7 ( 20 08 ) ( un pu blish ed o r de run de rSu pr eme Court Rul e 23) ( Schinell i I ). On reman d, the trial

court entered three orders from wh ic h Bruce n

ow appeals. Bruce contends tha

t the tri al cou rt er red i n ( 1) a wa rdi ng Ce ci l y $15 ,00 0 i n a ttorn ey f ee s f ordefend ing t he fi rst app eal; ( 2) finding tha t he had dis si pated $17,919 o f m

arital assets; an d (3) enterin

g a “Qual if ie d Do mes t ic Re l ati

ons Ord er” (QD RO ) th at i

m prop erl y modif i ed the j udg men t of the di ss ol ution of marriage. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for additional pro ceedings. The recor d in

this case i s s ub sta n ti al . A gr ea t de al of ev i den ce wa s pre se

n ted i n th e tr i al cou rt. Theref ore, onl y those f acts n ece ssa ry to an un derst anding of

th i s c our t’s de cisi on wi l l b e s et f orth bel ow, and t he relev

ant fac ts wil l b e di scussed i

n the an al ys is of the i ssues to which

th ey are p er ti n en t. Award of A

tt orney F ees On A ugust 2 1, 2 008 , Ce ci

l y f i l ed a p eti ti on for co nt ribut ion o f fees and co st s incur re d in t he previous appe al
. Cecily

sought reim

bursem ent for atto rney

fees of $30,570.07 and costs of $272.81. The pe t it io n w as su pp o r t ed by an af fidavit fr om Ce cily’s att or ney reg ar ding his firm’s fees. The pe ti ti on wa s n ot sup po rt ed by any

aff ida vi t from Ceci

ly . On Decem

ber 11, 2008, followi

ng a h earin g, t he trial court ordered Bruce to pay $15,000 of Ceci

ly ’s attor ney

fees . The trial

court expl

ai ned thatNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-3-

if Bruc e had app ealed only t he issue of su pplement al maintena nce, he wo uld have pr evailed a nd no con tri bu ti on to fees would be

warranted. However, sin ce Bruce had a

ls o appealed the awar d o f perman ent ma in tenance an

d dis si pation, the trial

court hel d that contr ib

ution was appropria

te. On ap pea l, Br uce ar gue s t hat t he trial court ’s decision to award Ceci ly $15,000 in

atto rney fees was aga inst t he ma

nifes t weigh t o f the ev ide nce. Bruce contends tha

t Cecil y f ai le d to show that she had an i nab il ity to pay her own f ees. Bruce f

urther argues that t he t rial co ur t er re d in det er mini ng that Ce ci l y wa s enti tl ed to apo r t io n o f he rfee s be ca us e s he su bst an t ially pr ev aile d o n t he firs t ap pe al. At t he ou t set , w e co nsider Cec ily ’s ar gument that we do not have jurisdi ction o ver Bru ce’s fi rst content ion. Cecil

y n ot es that when the t rial

cour t enter ed its order awarding her atto rney f ees, t he trial cou rt i n di ca ted th at i ts order wa s f

i na l
. Cecily contends that, because the tria l c ourt ’s order
was fi nal , Bruce should have fi

le d his ap pe al w it hin30 da ys ra th er th an wa i ti n g f or th e tr i al cou rt to re so lvethe other po stjudgm ent pe titions t ha t ha d b ee n file d in t he ca se . As B ruc e d id n o t , Ce cily
argu es th at w e m

ay n ot co n si der the p rop riety

of t he aw ar d o f at t o rne y fee s. I n so ar gu ing , Ce cily acknowledges th at he r co nt ent ion is inco nsist ent wit h t his co ur t ’s de cisions in In re Marriage of Alyassi r , 335 Ill . App. 3d 998 (2003), and In reMarriage of Duggan , 376 Il l . Ap p. 3d 72 5 (200 7). Ho we ve r , she ur ge s t his court to overrule Alyassi r an d to i n ste ad adopt th e a n al y sis s et f orth in the sp ec ial c o nc ur r en ce in

Duggan . In In re Marriage of Gutman , 23 2 I ll. 2 d 1 45 , 15 1 ( 20 08 ) , o ur su pr eme co ur t r ec en t ly expl ai ned:

“‘An

order is f i na l an d a ppe al ab l e if i t term i na testhe l i ti ga ti on b etw een th

e p arti eson t he me rits or disposes of

the righ ts of the parties, ei

ther on the entire c ont ro ve rsy or a se pa ra te part ther eof.’ R.W. Dunteman Co. v. C/G Enterprises, Inc. , 181 Ill . 2d 153, 159Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-4-

(1998 ). A

bs en t a R ule 3 04( a) f

i nd i ng , a f i na l orde r disp osi ng of f ew er th an al l of t he cla ims i s n ot an appe al ab l e ord er a nd doe s n ot be co me a pp ea lab le until all of the cl ai ms have been resolved. Marsh v

. Evangelica l Coven ant Chur ch of Hinsdal

e , 138 Il l . 2d 458 , 464 (1 990). T his court has def

in ed a ‘cl ai m’ as ‘an y ri ght, li abi li ty or matter raised

i n a n acti on.’ Marsh , 138 Ill. 2d at 46 5. Th e r ule wa s mea nt ‘t o dis co ur ag e p iec eme al a pp ea ls in t he a bse nce o f a just re as on an d to remove the un

certainty whi ch ex is ted when a f

in al judgm ent was entered on fewer t han all

of the mat ter s in contro versy.’ Marsh , 138 Ill . 2d at 465.” Here, t he t rial co ur t ’s o rd er awa rd ing Cec ily at t or ney fees d id no t include a finding pur sua nt to Su pr eme Co ur t Ru le 304(a) ( eff . Jan 1, 2006) . Thus, pursuan t to Gutman , the trial

court ’s order
was no t ap pe ala ble unt il all of t he o t her claims had bee n re so lved. As Bruce properly fi le d hi s notice of app eal aft er t he t r ial c o ur t ha d r es o lve d a ll of the cl ai m s pendi ng b etween the parti

es, th i s court hasjurisdi ction over the i ssue of the award of atto rney fees . See Gutman , 232 Ill . 2d at 151. In so ruli ng, we n ote that our su

prem e court’ s de ci sion i s consi sten t wi th our deci sions in Alyassi r and Duggan . We therefore decline C ecil y’ s in vi tat ion to re vi sit ei

ther o f those cases. Tu rning to the

meri ts of Bruce’s f irst contention, we n

ot e that att orney f

ees ar e ge ner ally the
res pon si bi l i ty of the p arty who in curre d the f ees . In re Marriage

of Cantrell

, 314 Ill . App. 3d 623, 630 ( 20 00 )
. Se ct io n 5 08 ( a) o f t he I llino is Marriage an d D i ss ol ution of Ma rri ag e A ct (th e D i ss ol ution A ct) (7 50 IL CS 5/ 50 8( a) (West 20 08 )) prov i de s i n pa rt: “The cou rt f rom ti me to tim e, after due notice

and h earin g, and af ter consideri

ng the f in anci al
resources of

th e p ar ti es , m ay order an y pa rty to pa y a re as ona bl e a moun t f orhis ow n or t he other pa rty’ s cos ts an

d attorney ’sf

ees .” 750ILCS 5/508 (a) (W est 200 8).Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-5-

The p rop riety

of an award of atto rney

fees is dependen

t upo n a sh

owing b y the party seeki

ng them of an i n ab i l i ty to pa y an d th e a b i l i ty of th e oth er sp ous e to do so. Cantrell , 314 Ill . App. 3d at 630. Al thoughaw ar din g fe es r es t s la r ge ly in t he t r ial c ou rt’s disc retion, such an

award will

be reve rsed wh en th e f i n an ci al ci rc um sta n ce s of b oth partiesare substantially

si mi la r and the party s eeki

ng f ees ha s n ot shown an i na bi l i ty to pay . In re Mar

riage of Roth , 99 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 67 9, 686 ( 1981)
. Here, the trial

court abused i

ts discretion in

ordering Bruce to pay $15, 000 of Cecily ’s atto rney f ees . The record re

ve al s tha t Bruce earn ed subs tantial l y m ore than Cec i l y . He ea rn e d ap pr o ximat ely

$200,0 00 a y

ear w hi l e Ce cil y earn ed ap proxi matel y $30,0 00 a y ea r . Ho we ve r , in disso lving the parties’ m

arriage, the trial

co urt at tempted to r ectif y thi s di ff erence, orderin

g that Bruce pay Ce cily permanent mont hly m ainte nance of $ 6, 692 ($ 80, 304 a year ). Thu s, c ons ider ing t he
com bi na ti on of Ceci ly ’s an nual salary an d her m ai ntenan ce award ($30,000 + $80,000 = $110,000) in conj unction w

ith B ruce’s sal

ary an d hi s m ai ntenan ce obliga tions ($200,000 - $80,000 = $12 0,000) , t he parties’ f

in anci al ci rcumstances were s

ub sta nti al l y si m i l ar. Ba se d on

t his fa ct , an d b ec au se Ce cily did not demonstrate that she was unable to pay her atto rney

fees , the t ri al

court err ed in o rd er ing Bruce to pay those fee s. See id. In so ru ling, we find Cecily’s reliance on In re Marriage of Minear , 181 Ill . 2d 5 52 , 561 (1998 ), t o be misp lac ed
. I n t ha t ca se , t he wife ha d mo nt hly net in come of $1,086 an

d al so receiv

ed monthl y m ai ntenan ce of $50 0 (f ora tot al of $1,586 a m

onth). The husb and’s

monthl y n et inc ome, after making t he mainte nance payment , w as $ 2, 563 . At a hea ring o n her mot ion t o ha ve t he hus band pay her atto rney

fees , the wif

e testif ie d that she could n

ot pay her legal fees and t hat she coul d n ot af f ordt o c ont inue pa ying

$675 i n m onthl y mortgage pa

y men ts. The trial

court subse quently

awarded t he wif e her at to rney fees. In this case, Ce cil y’s ma in tenance awa rd was subs t ant ially

higher t han t heNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-6-

wif e’s in Minear . Mo r eo ve r , un like t he wif e in Minear , C ecily did not pr ovid e evide nce t hat she could not afford t o pay her own legal fees. Furth er, Cec i l y ackn owl edge s tha

t her trial

coun sel pointed out at t he h

earin g that “su bst an t ially

pr evailed” was not a qu est ion b ef or e t he co ur t . I ndee d, sec t ion 5 08( a) of t he Di ss ol ution Act m akes no ref

erence to at t o rne y fee s be ing aw ar de d t o t he pa rt y wh o su bst an t ially prev ail ed i n pr evi ous l i tig ati on. See

750 IL CS 5/5 08(a) (We st 2008 ). Di ss i pa ti on At t he trial

on March 1, 2007, Ceci

ly ’s attor ney

questioned Bruce a

bout withdrawal s he h

ad
ma de from the parties ’ jo int US AA ta x-e xempt money- mark et acc ou nt . B ru ce t est ifi ed t hat he
r o ut ine ly t r an sfe rr ed fun ds fr o m t he ac co un t t o t he ir joint chec king acc ou nt t o p ay marit al bill s. As to certain w

ithdrawal s, he testif ie d that he did not kno w why he w ithd re w t he mone y and did no t have any docum en ts to ref resh his rec oll ection. The t rial court did not all ow Br uce’s attorn

ey to que sti on Bruce re ga rd ing t ho se wit hdr aw als. At t he c lo se o f the trial , the trial cou rt found that Bruce ha

d dis si pated assets. On appeal

, this court reversed a f

in din g of di ssi pation as to $17,919 and rema nded f ora new hear ing so t hat Bru ce c ou ld have t he o ppo rt unit y to pr ese nt evidenc e t hat t he expen ditures
ma de from the joi nt money -market account between F ebruary 2006 and Fe

bruary 2007 w ere f

or ma rital purposes. We al so stat ed: “In so ru ling, we not e t hat altho ugh B ru ce w as no t able t o t est ify as t o t he wit hd r aw als dur ing

his c as e- in-c hief, there was evi dence to rebut a determi

nation tha t Bruce dis si pated any f unds. The

evi den ce showe d tha

t whi l e the di ssol uti on proce edi

ngs were pend ingan

d the p arti

eswere l i vi ng ap art, Bru

cepai d hou sehol d expen ses f or t he m arital resi dence, hi s own househ old ex penses , and a ll [of t he pa rt ies’ so n] I an’s p er so nal andNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-7-

educated-related [ sic ] ex

pen se s. Br

uc e’ s [ com

pr eh ensi v e f i n an ci al sta tem en t] showed that his monthl

y i nc ome af ter d eductions w as $ 8,652 a nd th at his total

m onthl y ex penses were $10,163. Accordin

gly , Bruce was operating at

a mo nt hly de fic it o f $ 1, 51 1. Ac co r di ng ly, wit hdr awing f

unds f rom th e j oin t mon ey mark et fun

d in the am ount o f $17,919 ($26,273 minus the funds s pent on [ Bru ce’s girlfriend ] G allo and t he fund s t o pa y off t he jo int cr ed it card) overt he co ur se o f t we lve mo nt hs s ee ms r ea so na ble . A $ 1,511 m onthl y def i ci t over a twe l v e- mon th period res

ul ts in a t ot al deficit of $ 18, 132 , w hich is app ro ximately t he amo unt withdrawn

by Br uc e. Br uc e t es t ified t ha t t he pa rt ies ’ bills were traditional ly pai d out of t he part ies’ j oin

t che cki ng a ccoun t. He further testif

ie d that he

routi ne l y tran sf erred f un dsf rom t he j oi n t m on ey mar ket ac cou n t to t he che cking a cco unt when the parties’ e

xpenses exceeded the bal ance i n the ch ecki ng account.” Schinell

i I , sl i p op. at 21-2 2. On Apr il 27, 2 009 , o n re mand, t he t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a hear ing. B ru ce t est ifi ed t hat he had wi thdrawn a tot al of $17,919 from

the parties’ j oint USAA

tax-exem pt money- mark et acc ou nt and th en de pos i ted th at m on ey i n th e p ar ti es ’ j oi n t US A A ch ecki n g acc oun

t. These wit hdr awa ls and dep os its w er e made on nine o cca sions . B ru ce p re sent ed d oc ument s t hat re flect ed t he first eight of t he wi thdra wals an d sub seq uen t deposi ts. H e did no t have any document t hat reflected the last wit hd r aw al, of $2,000 on Feb ruary 9, 2007. However, he testif ie d that he deposi

ted th at m on ey i n to t he joint chec king ac co unt to preve nt tha t accoun t, whi ch had a b alance of

$799.7 2 on F ebruary

13, 200 7, fro m being ove rd ra wn. (T he judg ment of di ss ol ution found that the che cki

ng account had a val ue of $2, 270 on Marc h 1 , 20 07. ) Br

uc e al so te sti

f i ed tha t he depos i ted ove r $6 ,00 0 f rom one of h i s p er son

al ac cou n ts i n to th e j oi n t ch ecki n g acc oun

t.Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-8-

As to wi th dr aw als f

rom th e ch ecki

n g acc oun

t, Bruce intr od uce d int o e vidence t he che cking
acc ou nt st at ement s. T hese st at ement s de t ailed eve ry de po sit a nd eve ry AT M, c he ck , tra ns f er, or deb i t-card withdrawal

after the deposits f

rom the m oney-market account were ma de. Bruce testif

ie d
re gar ding th e wi

th dr aw als. Br

uc e te sti f i ed th at from

January 2006 through March 2007, he was pr imar ily r es po nsib le fo rpa ying ho us eh o ld e xp en se s fo rt he fo rmer mar it al r es ide nc e in Napervi ll e. The ex pe nse s w er e p aid us ing ele ct r o nic transfers from ei ther hi s personal

US AA chec king ac co unt orthe joi nt USAA c

hecki ng account. He paid Cecily ’s h ousin g expenses wi

t h t he joint US AA chec king acc ou nt . B et wee n J an uary 20 06 an d M ar ch 20 07 , in a dd it io n t o Ce cily’ s ho us eh o ld expenses, he pai

d the expenses of es

tabli shi ng hi s own residence, h

is general li vi

ng expenses (gas, food, and clot hes), and h

is son Ian’s personal and colle ge ex

penses . In 2006 and early 2007, I an’s coll ege e xpe ns es, f or Bel mont Un i versi ty i n Te nn ess ee, c ost about $2 ,700 a month. Dur ingthe tim

e fram e at iss ue, Bruce’s m

onthly gross earni

ngs were $16,717. His mo nt hly expenses for bo th ho usehold’s and Ian’s scho oling w er e o ver $10 ,0 00. The par t ies had a joint US AA
cr ed it card w

hi ch both of them use d i n 20 06. He paid the credit card bi ll in ful l e ach month through
one of the two accounts. He and Cecily each h ad a debit car d fo r t he joint US A A ch ecki n g acc oun

t, whi ch h e used occasionally

in 2006 thro ugh early

2007. Mo st o f the debi

t t ransactions were hers. Bruce testifi

ed that this was

appa ren t be ca us e m ost of t he t r an sa ct io ns o cc ur r ed clo se t o wh er e C ec ily li ved in Na pe rville. He lived in

W he el i ng . Br uc e te sti f i ed tha t he tran sf erred f un dsocc as i ona

l l y f rom t he joint US AA ta x-e xempt money- mark et acc ou nt i n to the joi nt USAA c

hecki ng account to co ver li vi ng expenses over and above thei r incom es. Cecily testifi ed that from Jan

uary 2006 through March 2007 she l

iv ed at the former m

arital resi dence. She worked at Oak Consulti ng i n Lisle and h

er pay was di

rectly deposited

twicea m on thNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-9-

i n to t he jo int US AA c he ck ing ac co un t . He rmo nt hly ne t inc o me from her em ploy me nt was $1,048. Her mortgage, utili

ty, food, and other household e xpenses to taled $3,330 and were pai d by Bruce. He paid t he r eal est at e t axes fro m the jo int che cking ac co un t . Sh e p aid t he mo nt hly ca ble an d c ell pho ne bi ll s f rom the j oint che cki

ng account. Her personal expenses of $711 per

mont h and c lot hing expenses werech

arge d to t he pa r t ies ’ jo int US AA c r ed it ca r d. T he jo int US AA c r ed it card bi ll was pa id fr o m t he ir

joint checki

ng a ccoun t. Her m onthl y m i sce l l aneous expe

ns es totaled $8 04 an

d were also p ai d f rom th e j oi n t ch ecki n g acc oun

t. Ce ci l y ackn owl ed ge d th at sh e trav

el ed to Flo r ida in

January 2006, Tenness ee i

n Novem ber 2006, and Las Ve gas in Dece mber 2 006 . N one of t he t rips w er e wo rk -r elat ed. She u sed t he joint
cr ed it car d while she was on t hos e t rips. She a lso a ckno wledg ed t hat she had used t he joint chec king
acc ou nt t o mak e pa yments t o he r a t t or neys. ( The record reveal s tha t Ceci l y use d the j oin t credi t card to pay he r attorney

s $5,0 79.51 b etween Jan uary 2006 a nd F ebruary

2007.)She

f urt he r acknowledged

that she made ATM withdrawals fr om th e j oin t che cki ng a ccoun t. (The re cord i ndi cates that sh e m ade w i thdra wals of $1,409 .95.) At t he clo se o f the hear ing, t he trial court ruled

t hat Bru ce ha d failed t o s how by clear a nd
co nvincing

evi dence that

he had not dissipa t ed mar ital as set s fro m the joint chec king ac co unt . T he trial court expl

ai ned: “The Ap pel l ate Court did spe cif

i cal l y say , Coun sel, that y

ou were sup po sed t o p ro ve by cl ear and conv

in ci ng ev ide nce h ow the money

went. I don’t hav e any

cance le d checks sho wing what he pa id, I do n’t have a nything. I lo ok ed— I c an clea rly see t hat he made —he put mon ey

i n to th e acc oun

t. That’s clear. I understand how m uch he wa s pu t t ing into t he
ac cou n t.Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-10- But he was retain

in g the rest of the mone

y tha t he earned. You offered n ot one pi ece of evi dence today

t hat sho wed what bill

s he pai d with the rem

ai nder of h is mone y: No lease, no re n t, no e xp ense s, n

o ca r, n o ga s, n o denta l bi l l s, n othi ng tha t youoff ered in to evi dence t o da y. I do th

i n k th at c l ea rl y h e d i d transf er mon ey i n to the account. I saw that. When his inc o me went up t o t he $2 00, 000 , it didn’t app ear t hat his dep os its int o t his acco unt went up. I have t o lo ok at t he amo unt of mo ney tha t he wa s re t aining ove r a nd abo ve wha t he
was put t ing in befor e, he ke pt it at t he sa me amou nt , a nd the n h e di dn ’t acc oun

t f or howhe sp en t t he r es t o f t he mo ne y. I don’ t thi nk y ou met the b

urden that the Courtrequi

red of you to mee

t. I t hou ght it was r ea lly cl ea r , an d I ex pe ct ed t o ge t t ha t ev id en ce in t o da y, an d I d i dn ’t g et on

e p i ec e of it
. * * * The rem ai ni ng s ev en teen ni ne one n i ne , I st ill find it to be di ssi pation, I stil

l f in d that yo ufai le d to me et your burden

b y cl ea r a n d c on v i n ci n g ev i den ce

to show how the f

unds we re spent, not that they

weren’ t deposi

ted, I un derstand they were depos i ted.” In Schinell

i I , this court explai

ned:

“ Di ss i pa ti on hasbe en de fine d a s t he us e o f mar it al p r o pe rt y fo rt he so le b en efit of o ne o f the spouses f or a purpo se unrel

ated to the ma

rriage at a tim

e when the ma rriage is unde rg oing
an irre co ncilable brea kdo wn. In re Marriage o f Vancura , 356 Ill . App. 3d 200, 203 (2 005). The de t er minatio n of w het her dissipa t ion o ccu rr ed in a g iven case is review ed u sing t he
man if est wei ght of the evi den ce standard of

revi ew. Vancura , 35 6 I ll. App. 3d a t 204 . T heNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-11-

general prin ci ple is that t he person ch

arged w i th

th e d i ss i pa ti on i s u n der a n ob l i ga ti on to establi sh by cl ear and conv

in ci ng ev ide nce h ow the funds

were spent. Vancura , 356 Ill . App. 3d at 204 . Ge

ne ral sta tem en ts th at f un dswere s pent on mari tal ex pens esorto pay

bi l l s are in adequate to avoi d a

f i ndi ng of di ssi pation. In re Marriage

of Petrovich , 154 Ill . App. 3d 881, 886 (1987).” Schinell i I , sli p op. at 16. We bel ie ve that the trial

court erred in

fi ndi ng that Bruce had d issipat ed a sset s fro m the jo int chec king acco unt . I n Schinel li I , we rem an de d f or th e tri al cou rt to con duc t a n ew he ari ng on whether Bru ceha d di ss i pa ted $17 ,91 9 f

rom th e j oi n t ch ecki n g acc oun

t an d to allow him t o p re sent evi dence on that issue. A

lthough the tri al

court conducted ahear ing and a llowed Bru ce t o p re sent evi dence of how f unds i n the j oint che cki

ng account had b een spen t, t he trial

court ’s rul

in g was unrelated to the evi

dence prese

nted. Inst ead , t he t rial co ur t esse nt ially fou nd t hat Bru ce s hou ld have been pa y i ng the f am i l y ’s bi l l s wi th on e of his i ndi vi dual acc ounts ra

ther th an the j oin t accoun t. That
was im proper. S ee In re Marriage of Davis , 215 Ill . App. 3d 763, 778 (1991) (although husband h ad ot her fun ds av aila ble t o him, he wa s n ot req ui red to us e th ose f un ds , b ef ore u si ng mari tal f un ds , f or f am i l y purpos es). As we notedin Schinell

i I , w hen Br uce was alleged ly dissipat ing marit al asse t s, he was paying ho us eh o ld

ex pe nse s fo rt he mar it al r es ide nc e, his o wn ho us eh o ld expenses, and a ll

of Ian’s personal and education-re lated expenses. Thesesubstantial expenses cause d Bruce t o inc ur a mo nt hly d efic it of $1, 511 . At the heari

ng on rem and, Bruce testif

ie d that t he parties ’ bi

ll s were traditiona

ll y pa id out of the p arti es’ j oin

t che cki ng a ccoun t. A t th at s am e h ea ri n g, t h e p ar ti es ’ s tate men ts fro m the jo int chec king account were in

tro duced i nto evide nce. Brucet est ifi

ed in de t ail reg ar ding t he t ra nsac t ions and whethe r he o r Ce cil y h ad m ade each trans action an

d why it had b een m

ade. Bruce furtherNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-12-

testifi ed that he depo site d o ve r $ 6, 000 fro m one o f his indivi dua l acco unt s into t he joint chec king
ac cou n t. Ba se d on

th e ev i den ce

adduce d a

t th e or i gi n al trial i n con j un cti on wi th the evi de nce presented at the h ea ri ng on re mand, t he re co rd sho ws t hat Bru ce e st ablished by clear and c onvincing
ev ide nce t ha t he did n

ot dis si pate mari tal ass ets. The trial

court ’s f in din g to the contrary was therefore agai

nst the m anifes t weigh t o f the ev

ide nce. In so rulin g, we r eje ct Ce cily ’s argument that Bruce presented only vague an

d general tes t imony as to how t he f

unds were spe

nt. We bel

ie ve that Bruce’s testim

ony a nd other eviden c e su fficie nt ly

set forth how the fun

ds f rom the parties’ joi

nt checki ng a ccount were spe nt. We also reject Cecily ’s argum

ent that Bruce esse nt ially

admit t ed t hat he dis si

pated $816.50 t hat he wi

thdrew by AT M a nd $2 , 11 9. 99 t ha t he pa id t o his a t t o rne ys. T he r ec o r d r ev ea ls that du r ing t he t ime fr ame at is sue, Ceci

ly pai d her atto rney s f ees of $5,079.51. She mad e AT M wit hdr awa ls of $1 ,4 09. 95. She also use d t he joint ch

ec ki ng ac cou nt to p ay ex pens esi nc urred on personal trips to Florida , Tenness ee, and La s V eg as . As s uc h, Ce cily was making t he same t ypes o f withd ra wals fro m the jo int che cking
acc ou nt tha

t sh e c ri ti ci ze s B ruc e f

or m ak i ng . Base d on

t hese circu msta nces , w e believe t ha t it wo uld b e i n eq ui tab l e to f i n d th at B ru ce diss i pa ted as sets a n d to ov erl ook C ec i l

y ’s si m i l ar con duct. Qualif ie d Domestic Relations Order In i ts judgm ent of di ssolution on March 16, 2007, the tri al courtevenl

y di vided the par ties’
r et ir ement ass ets. The t rial co ur t awa rd ed e ach p ar t y his or he r o wn r et irement asse t s. T he o ne exce ption was Bruce ’s Wa ch o via 401 (k ) a cco unt . T he t rial co ur t divided t hat asse t so t hat t he
ove ral l di vi si on of t he mar it al r et ire men t as se t s w o uld be eq ua l. Speci fi cally , the trial court ’s order provided: Asse t Equ i ty Bruce Ce cilyNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-13-

TTX Thrif

t Plan $5,418 $5,418 0 Wach ovia 401(k) $309,423 $156,901 $152,522 Wach ovia Defe rred Comp. $62,665 $62,665 0 Schwab IRA $49,128 $49,128 0 Schwab IRA $27,732 0 $27,732 Schwab IRA $27,118 0 $27,118 Oak C onsu

l tants 4 01(k) $66,670 0 $66,670 Tot al $548,224 $274,112 $274,112 On No ve mbe r18 , 20 08 , Ce cily f i l ed a m otion f or aQDRO

ba sed on the di ssol uti on order. She r equ est ed t hat $15 2, 522 be t ra nsferr ed fr om t he Wach ovia 401(k) account to her. Bruce f il ed
a wri tten ob j ecti on , s tati

n g th at t h e v al ue of th e pl an h

ad dropped drastically

due to market conditions. Hethe

ref ore a rgued tha t a tra ns f er to C eci ly of the amou nt or iginally or der ed w as no longe r appropriate. On Apr il 27, 2 009 , t he t rial co ur t co nduc t ed a he ari ng onCecily ’s m

ot ion. The

evi dence establ is hed that as of March 31, 2009, the Wachovi a 401(k) account had a val ue of $179, 830 . In response t o c omment s by

t he pa rt ies as t o it s inte nt in dividing the re tire men t accoun ts, the tri al court expl ai ned: “I added

t he m allup, divided t hem by two . S he ke pt her s, he kep t his, exc ept for t he 40 1K f or h i m , he w oul

d h av e to rol l ov er m on ey i n to her . So t

h at, when they all e nded up at th e b ottom, they

h ad th e s am e a moun t. * * *Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-14- The Wa ch o via401 K was t he vehicle d esigna t ed t o be t he o ne t ha t mo ne y wo uld co me out of hi s so tha

t, wh en i t went i nto h ers , th ey woul d e ach h

ave the s am

e total f orall o f t he ir
acc ounts.” Bruce ’s att or ney argued t hat Cec il y’s QD RO sho uld be fo rha lf o f wh at t he Wa ch o via401(k) was
cu rr en t ly worth. The tr

i al cou rt q ue sti on ed wh eth er i t cou l d r eev al ua te one of t he pa rt ies’ r et irement
ac cou n ts withoutr ee va lua t ing allof the o ther ret irement acco unts t hat had been divided. Cecily ’s atto rney ar gu ed t ha t t he dis solut ion o rd er pr ovid ed t hat she w as t o r ece ive $15 2, 522 fro m the Wacho via 401 (k ); t hus, t hat is the amou nt she sho uld r ece ive. At t he clo se o f the heari ng, the trial courto r de r ed t ha t $1 52 , 52 2 ( 84 . 8% o f t he Wa ch o via 40 1( k) ac co un t ’s va lu e) be aw ar de d t o Ce cily. Onap pe al, Br uc e a r gu es t ha t t he t r ial c o ur t er r ed in e nt er ing a Q DR O t ha t im properl y modifi ed the dis soluti on order. Bruce con ten dstha t the tri al cou rt’ s d i ss ol ution order intended that th e p ar ti es ’ reti re men t as se ts be divided equ ally betwe en t hem. H ow ever , t he eff ect o f the QDRO
was t o aw ar d C ec ily

an addi ti on al $1 25 ,00 0. B ru ce

i n sists t ha t t he QD RO wa s imp r o pe rbe ca us e it
cau sed him to bear all of t he los s t hat t he Wach ovia 401(k) account suff

ered between

March 2007 and Mar ch 20 09. Bru ce maint ains t hat , in ent er ing t he QDR O, t he t rial co ur t sho uld have div ide d the Wachovi a 401(k) account loss between them in a way that was consistent w

i th i ts j udg men t of disso lut ion. Judgmen ts may beconstr ued li

ke ot her written instruments. In re Marriage of Breslow, 306 I ll. Ap p. 3d 41 , 57 (19 99). For instance, al thoughan un

am bi guous judgm

ent mus t be enf orced as drafted, an am

bi guous judgm

ent ma y be r ea d in co nju nc t io n w it h t he en t ire r ec o r d a nd co nst rue d in
acc ordance therewi

th. Id
.Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-15-

He r e, t he pr o ble m wit h t he dis so lut io n o r de r is no t t ha t it is amb iguous; the problem is that it is unenfo rc eable. The disso lut ion o rd er unambiguo usly pro vided t hat Bru ce w as t o r ece ive $156,901 f

rom th e W ach ov i a 4 01 (k

) a cc oun t an d th at Ce cilywas t o r ece ive $15 2, 522 fro m the Wa ch o via401(k) account. When the trial court entered the QDRO on Apri l 27, 200 9, th

e di ss ol ution order wa s i

m pos si bl e to c om pl y wi th b ec au se

the W achov i a 4 01( k) a cc ou n t wa s w o rt h o nly $179,830. W e there f

ore b el i eve that the tri

al cou rt’ s res ol ution o f t his is su e— t o ha ve Br uc e b ea rall t he lo ss t ha t t he Wa ch o via401 (k ) a cco unt incur re d—is bo t h unfair a nd co nt ra ry t o t he j udg men t of dis soluti on. Accordin

gly , the trial court ’s decision mus

t be reversed. In arguin g that she sho uld no net heless r ece ive the full $152 ,5 22, des pit e t he diminut ion in t he Wach ovia 401(k) acc ou nt , C ecily relies o n In re Marriage of Carrier, 332 Ill . App. 3d 654 (2002 ). We find Ce cily’ s re liance o n t hat cas e t o be misplaced . I n Carrier, the parties ha d a m arital set t lement agreem

ent that pro vi

de d th at t he wif

e wo uld receive $725, 000 fro m the husband’s in div idua l re t irement acc ou nt (I RA) via a QD RO. Pr ior t o t he ent ry o f the disso lut ion jud gment , t he trial court conducted a proveup of the settlem ent agreem

ent. At the proveup, t he hus band testifi ed that he unde rst oo d t hat t he wife wa s t o r ece ive $72 5, 000 fro m his IRA re gar dless o f whe th er th e ma rket val ue of the account rose or fell fol lowi ng the en try of the dissolution judgm ent. On June 14, 200 0, th e tri al cou rt en tere d a j udg men t of di ss ol ution th at w as con siste n t wi th the parties’ m

arital set t lement agr eement . O n No vembe r 27, 2000, t he wif e fi le d a petition f

or a rule to show cause, alleging that t he h

usban d had fai le d to transfer to her the $725,000. On February 21, 2001, t he trial courtconducteda hea ring on the wi f e’s peti tion . Several

corres ponde nc es b etween the parti

es were in tro duced that i n di ca ted th at, un ti l Septem b er 28 , 20 00 , the wi f

e h ad tak en on th e res ponsi b i l i ty to ef f ectua te t he t ra nsfer fr om t he I RA. T he hus band t est ifi ed t hat t he ac co unt was cur re nt ly wor thNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-16-

$120,000 less

than i t was w hen the parti

es’ marriage was d

i ssol ve d. The hus

ban d al so test if

ie d that he believed t he pa rt ies we re t o d ivide t he I RA o n a per cent age ra t io. Thu s, be cau se t he value o f the
acc ou nt had gone down, he assert ed that the value of the wife’s s hare had al so decr eas ed. At t he close of the he ari ng , th e tri

al cou rt f ou nd t hat for t he pe rio d bet wee n Sep t ember 1 , 2 000 , a nd Septembe r 28, 2000, eacho f t he pa r t ies sho uld as su me a prop orti on of th e l oss i n ac corda n ce wi th his or her r

ati o of i ntere st. Id. at 65 5- 57 . On ap pe al, t his co ur t vaca t ed t he t rial co ur t ’s de cision. Id. at 662. We fo und t hat t he ma rit al se t t lemen t ag re eme nt una mbigu o us ly st at ed t hat t he w ife was to rece i ve $725,0 00. Be caus e the

mari tal settlem en t agreemen

t di d not i ndi cate that the wi f

e’s awar d f rom the IRA was

t o be ba se d o n a pe r ce nt ag e o rt o be affe ct ed by su bse qu en t fluc t ua t io ns in ma rket val ue, we he ld t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d in ru ling tha t t he wif e’s sh are of the IRA was affect ed by t he chan ge in t he mark et value o f the acc ou nt between the d i ssol uti on j udgm

en t and the date of

trans f er. Id. at 658. In a dis sent, one j ustice wrote the trial court ’s decision allocati

ng the m arket losses between t he pa r t ies sho uld be

af f i rmed. Id. at 662 (O ’Malley, J. , d issent ing). The dissent expl ai ned that be caus e the

wi f e was resp onsi bl e f or the tra n sf er of th e fu nd s d ur ing a c er t ain t ime fr ame , “it
wo uld be pa t en t ly un fair t o sa dd le [th e h usba nd ] wi th th e l oss i nc urred dur i ng tha t pe riod of

tim e.” Id. at 663 (O ’M al

l ey, J., disse

nti ng)
. Here, unlike in Carrier, t he pa rt ies did no t have a marit al set t lement a gr eement that div ide d t heir mar ital as set s. As suc h, u nlike t he hus band in Carrier, Br uc e n ev er ag r ee d t ha t Ce cily w o uld
rec ei ve a f i xe d a moun t f rom the ret irem

ent accou nt at issue. Rat her, the par ties’ re ti re men t as sets were di v i de d b y th e tr i al cou rt. In th e a b se n ce of an y mari tal settl em en t ag re em en t p r ovidi ng that Ce cily wo uld r ece ivea s et amo un t , we be lieve t ha t it wo uld be pa t en t ly un fair t o sa dd le one of t heNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-17-

partieswi th al l of th e l oss es i n cu rre d i n th e W ach ov i a 4 01 (k

) a cc oun t. Ac co r di ng ly, as stated above, we bel ie ve that the trial

court erred in

allocati ng al l of that loss to Bruce. Ce cily in si sts that the tr ial

cour t’s decision may

nonetheless b e aff

irm ed because Bruce fa

il ed to in tro duce evi

dence as to whether the val

ue of the other retireme

nt assets had

fluct uat ed. Relying
on In re Marriage of Brenner , 23 5 I ll. A pp . 3d 84 0, 84 8 ( 19 92 ) , Ce cily contends that the trial

court was obl i ga ted to r ee va lua t e a ll o f t he r et ire men t as se t s in o r de rt o en su r e t ha t t he y we r e p r o pe r ly div ide d. Be ca us e B ruc e d id no t pr es en t t he va lu e o f t he o t he ras se t s, Ce cily a rgues that he has fo rfe it ed his r ight t o any r elief. Ge ne r ally, if

a propert y di

vi si on is reversed b ased

on an i mproper val

uation, then

the proper remedy is t o r ever se t he pr op er t y set t lement in t he judg ment a nd r emand t he ca se fo r r eeva luat ion and red i vi si on of a l l the m ari tal ass ets. In re Marr

iage of Rubinste in , 145 Ill . App. 3d 31, 38 ( 198 6) . T he partiest o a disso lut ion must pr ovid e t he t rial co ur t wit h sufficient evi de nc e of prop erty val

ue. Brenner , 235 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 848. A review ing co ur t will not re ver se a nd r emand where the partie s had ade quate opp ortuni

ty to pre sen

t evi den ce b ut fa i l ed to do so. Id. Here, we do not beli

eve that the trial

court had to reeval

uate any of the parties’ assets other than t he Wac hovia 4 01( k) acc ou nt . I n Rubinstei n , at issue was

the trial court ’s i

mproper de term i na ti on of the v al

ue of the h usb and’s medi cal pra ct ic e. Rubinstei

n , 145 Ill . App. 3d at 38. Thatde term

i na ti on n ec es sa ril y i m pa cte d the di

vi si on of the parties’ other m

arital assets aswell as t he
amou nt of su ppo rt t hat t he hus band sho uld p ay the wife. I n t his case , ne ither t he t rial co ur t nor t he partiesin dic ated that t he di

vi si on of the Wa

chovi a 401(k) account had

an y i m pa ct on the di vi si on of t he part ies’ mari

tal estat e ot her than how the part ies’ retirement assets w er e d is tributed. Indeed, Ce cily doe s n ot f aul t Bru cebe ca us e h e f ai l ed to pre sent e

vi denc e of all of t he part ies’ mari

tal assets;Nos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-18-

she faul ts him only because he di

d not present evidence of

the current val

ue of t he pa rt ies’ r et irement
ass ets tha t had prev i ousl y be en di vi ded. Based upon h ow the re tire men t asse ts were div ide d, however, we do not bel ie ve that the trial courtwasobl

i gated to rea sse ss th

ose as sets. In it s o rd er of d isso lut ion o n Mar ch 16 , 2 007 , t he trial courtaw ar de d C ec ily

a 10 0% inter est in thr ee a cco unt s t hat had a t ot al value o f $12 1, 520 . T he trial courtawa rd ed B ru ce a 100 % int er est in thr ee a cco unt s t hat had a to tal val ue of $117,2 11. Thus, exclud ingthe W

ach ovia 401 (k ) ac co unt , t he t rial co ur t awa rd ed C ecily 50. 9% of t he r et irement
ac cou n ts and Bruce 49.1% of those acc ou nt s. As suc h, th e tr i al cou rt e ss en ti al l y aw arde d e ach

pa rty an equa l am ount of the re tire men t accoun ts. As the p arti es w ere a

warde d the se a

ccoun ts upon the e ntry of the j udg men t of disso lut ion, they wereth en

ab l e to m an ag e th e acc oun ts as conservative ly

or aggressiv

el y as they wanted. Thus, t he parties w eregiven t he ability to mini mize the ir acc ou nt s’ los ses d ur ing t he st oc k mar ket dec line that o cc ur r ed in 2 00 8. T his w as mar ke dly diff erent from

the si tuation with the W

achovi a 401(k)
ac cou n t. Be ca us e that acc oun

t wa s s ub j ec t to a Q DR

O, n ei the r pa rty coul d e xe

rci se an y di screti on over th at acc ount un

til the f i rst app eal wasresol ve d. We believe t hat if the trial

co ur t wer e o bligat ed t o r eco nsider t he value of t he o t her re t irement accounts bef

ore it addressed how the W achovi a 401(k) losses

should be al

located, it would l

ead to a po t en t ially

unfair r esu lt. If t he ot her accounts were consi dered, the party who m

anaged h is or her
ac cou n ts better during the m

arket decl i ne would ha ve to subs i di ze the party

who in curre d m ore losses wi th his or her invest ment s t ra t egy in or der t o e nsur e t hat t he ac co unt s co nt in ued to be di

vi ded equ ally. As t his wo uld be impr op er , c ont ra ry t o C ecily’s asse rt ion, Bru ce w as u nder no obl i ga ti onNos. 2 —09—0591 & 2—0 9—1160 co ns.

-19-

to pr ovid e t he t rial co ur t wit h evidenc e as t o w het her t he retirem ent assets previ

ously dis tributed had fl uctuated in v

al ue. Fin ally, we note that in di vi din g the Wach

ovia 401( k) acc ou nt , the trial court ’s March

16, 2007, di ss ol

ution or der had t he eff

ect of awardin

g 50.7% of the Wach

ovia 401(k) account t o Bruce and 49.3% of

the accoun

t to Cecil y . As t he tri al

cou rt’ s Q DR O of A pri l 27, 200 9, w asnot

co nsist ent wi th the orde r of d i ssol uti on, we reverse the Q DRO. On rem

and, the trial

cour t shall

enter a QDRO
co nsist ent wit h it s d iss o lut io n o r de r , aw ar din g 5 0. 7% o f t he Wa ch o via 401(k) account t o Bruce and 49.3% of the ac cou nt to C ec i l

y . The val

ueof t he Wa ch o via401(k) account shall b e based on w hat it would curren

tly be worth had i

t not been div ide d on April 27, 2009. Con cl us i on Fo r t he fo re go ing re aso ns, t he judg ment of t he ci rcuit court o f Du Page C ounty i s reversed and t he ca use is remand ed fo r a ddit ional pr oc eed ings co nsist ent wit h t his dec ision. Reversed and reman

ded with directions.