NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except 

in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

2024 IL App (3d) 230399-U

Order filed September 26, 2024 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

THIRD DISTRICT

2024 

In re MARRIAGE OF )

 ) 

LESLIE GRAY ROBBINS, ) 

 ) 

Petitioner-Appellee and ) 

Cross-Appellant, ) 

 ) 

and ) 

 ) 

EDWARD WEST ROBBINS, ) 

 ) 

 Respondent-Appellant and ) 

Cross-Appellee. )

Appeal from the Circuit Court

of the 18th Judicial Circuit, 

Du Page County, Illinois, 

Appeal No. 3-23-0399 

Circuit No. 21-D-1121 

Honorable 

Maureen R. Riordan, 

Judge, Presiding.

____________________________________________________________________________

JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Holdridge and Albrecht concurred in the judgment. 

____________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The trial court’s finding that the funds in an income retirement account were 

marital property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court 

erred in holding that the wife failed to present a prima facie case for dissipation. 

Reversed and remanded with directions and for further proceedings. 

¶ 2 Respondent, Edward West Robbins, appeals from the trial court’s ruling that an income 

retirement account was marital property. Petitioner, Leslie Gray Robbins, cross-appeals from the 
2 

trial court’s ruling denying her dissipation claim. For the following reasons, we reverse as to 

those challenged portions of the trial court’s dissolution judgment and order denying 

reconsideration and remand the cause with directions and for further proceedings consistent with 

this decision. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Leslie and Edward were married on June 3, 2006, and have two minor children. On June 

16, 2021, Leslie filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The parties entered into an agreed 

allocation of parental responsibilities and an equal parenting time schedule, and that agreement is 

not at issue on appeal. 

¶ 5 A. Pretrial Proceedings

¶ 6 Extensive pretrial litigation ensued on issues pertaining to the marital estate, including 

Leslie’s dissipation claim. Namely, on April 6, 2022, Leslie filed a petition for a temporary 

restraining order and preliminary injunction, requesting that Edward be enjoined from 

unilaterally accessing the parties’ marital assets. Leslie asserted that, between October 19, 2021, 

and January 18, 2022, Edward liquidated and transferred a total of $76,000 from the parties’ 

marital brokerage account into his personal bank account—$29,000 on October 19, 2021; 

$25,000 on November 17, 2021; and $22,000 on January 18, 2022. Edward filed a motion to 

strike and dismiss the petition, arguing, inter alia, that Leslie failed to plead the requisite 

irreparable harm, as there were no allegations that Edward in fact dissipated the subject funds, 

the marital estate was worth approximately $1.5 million, and Edward owns a business and earns 

a steady income from that business. On June 10, 2022, following a hearing, the trial court 

granted Edward’s motion but allowed Leslie leave to refile.
3 

¶ 7 Thereafter, on November 30, 2022, Leslie filed a notice of intent to claim dissipation at 

trial, in accordance with the statutory requirements set forth in section 503(d)(2) of the Illinois 

Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act). 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 2022). Leslie 

asserted that Edward made additional withdrawals from the marital brokerage account, depleting 

the account’s balance from $158,000 to zero during a 15-month time period. Edward filed a 

response, arguing that Leslie failed to establish that Edward used the funds for a nonmarital 

purpose and thus failed to establish a prima facie case for dissipation and that he withdrew the 

funds and transferred them into his checking account to pay “marital, family expenses.” 

¶ 8 B. Trial

¶ 9 Trial on the various disputed issues occurred over a period of five days in February 2023. 

Witnesses included both parties and Edward’s mother. In addition, Leslie called an expert 

witness on the issue of Edward’s income, and both parties called expert witnesses regarding the 

valuation of Edward’s business. We recount the evidence as it pertains to the issues on appeal—

the allocation of a Roth income retirement account (IRA) and the dissipation claim.

¶ 10 With respect to the Roth IRA, Edward testified that, in 2002 (four years before his 

marriage to Leslie), he converted a traditional IRA into the Roth IRA at issue here. Edward 

identified a 2002, IRA conversion form showing that he converted a traditional IRA into Roth 

IRA x2523, and a March 2003 statement for Roth IRA x2523. The next account statement 

Edward identified for the Roth IRA was a March 31, 2007, statement with a different account 

number—namely Roth IRA x5294. Edward testified, over Leslie’s counsel’s objection for lack 

of foundation and that it called for a conclusion, that the accounts were one and the same Roth 

IRA, although he acknowledged that he did not have a document evidencing this. The March 31, 

2007, statement contained a graph showing the monthly value of the account for the prior 12 
4 

months and in the “Retirement Activity Summary,” stated that no contributions were made in 

2006 (the year in which Edward and Leslie were married) or to date in 2007. Edward further 

testified that he made no contributions to the Roth IRA during that time. The March 31, 2007, 

statement further reflected that the value of the Roth IRA was $80,000 as of May 2006, which 

was just prior to the parties’ June 3, 2006, wedding. 

¶ 11 For the years 2007 through 2012, Edward provided no account statements for the Roth 

IRA but testified that he did not make any contributions to the Roth IRA in those years. The 

parties’ joint federal tax returns for 2007 to 2013 and an attached “IRA Information Worksheet” 

for each year were introduced into evidence. While Leslie’s counsel objected to admission of the 

worksheets for lack of foundation because the worksheets are neither signed nor filed, the trial 

court overruled the objection and admitted the worksheets along with the tax returns, which were 

self-prepared by Edward. The IRA Information Worksheet is a three-page form, stating at the top 

“Keep for your records,” and setting forth, inter alia, sections to record the “Basis (Contribution 

and Conversion History),” “Excess Contributions,” and “Contributions” for a Roth IRA. Edward 

testified that, as reflected on the 2007 to 2013 worksheets, he made no contributions to his Roth 

IRA during those years and that the basis in the Roth IRA remained precisely the same from 

2006 to 2013. Moreover, Edward testified that he could not have contributed to a Roth IRA in 

any of those years because his adjusted gross income, as reflected on the tax returns, was above 

the maximum level allowed for Roth IRA contributions. Leslie’s counsel had objected to the 

testimony, arguing that it assumes facts not in evidence and calls for a conclusion and an opinion 

as to the IRS limits—an opinion for which, counsel argued, Edward was not qualified to testify. 

However, the trial court overruled the objection, stating, “If he knows, overruled. You can 

answer.” 
5 

¶ 12 Edward did provide account statements for Roth IRA account x5294 for the years 2013 

through 2022, reflecting that no contributions were made to the account during that time. Edward

likewise testified that he made no contributions to the Roth IRA for those years. The final 

statement introduced (December 2022) reflected an ending account value of $487,424. 

¶ 13 With respect to the dissipation claim, Edward testified regarding his withdrawals and 

depletion of the $158,000 from the brokerage account during the 15-month time frame. Edward

did not dispute the withdrawals, confirmed that he was the sole authorized signatory on the 

brokerage account, and acknowledged that he transferred the funds into his sole checking 

account. Edward testified that his annual income was $50,000 at the time and that he needed the 

funds to pay household and child-related expenses. Edward further testified that he paid his 

personal credit cards from his checking account, including paying credit card bills in the amount 

of $18,810 in October 2021. Edward acknowledged that the credit card bills included charges for 

his attorney fees. Edward also acknowledged that, with the exception of a $20,000 payment to 

Leslie’s expert witness, none of the withdrawn funds were given to Leslie, who had moved out 

of the marital home in March 2022. Leslie introduced text messages and e-mails between the 

parties reflecting Leslie’s objections to Edward’s use of the funds. 

¶ 14 At the conclusion of Leslie’s case-in-chief, Edward’s counsel orally moved for a directed 

finding on Leslie’s dissipation claim on the ground that Leslie failed to provide any evidence that 

the funds were used for a nonmarital purpose. The trial court granted the motion, reasoning that, 

to shift the burden of proof regarding dissipation, there must first be a preliminary showing of 

dissipation and finding that Leslie failed to establish a prima facie showing of dissipation. The 

trial reasoned, 
6 

 “I’ve again gone through the testimony that we’ve taken; the testimony from 

[Edward] regarding his spending, I'll say where his funds were used for legal fees, 

mortgage payments, children’s camps, et cetera, et cetera; the testimony from [Leslie] 

this morning was that she was aware that these amounts were being removed from the 

retirement accounts in order to pay for the mortgage, the living expenses. According to 

[Edward’s] response, she also got a $20,000 advance from those funds. Respectfully, I 

don’t find that there’s been any evidence or testimony that these funds were used for a 

nonmarital purpose, and therefore, the motion for a directed finding is going to be 

granted.” 

However, the trial court subsequently granted in part Leslie’s counsel’s oral motion for 

reconsideration, citing Edward’s testimony that he used some of the funds for his attorney fees 

and reasoning that use of marital funds for attorney fees may amount to dissipation. 

¶ 15 C. Dissolution Judgment 

¶ 16 Following the close of evidence, the trial court took the matter under advisement and 

thereafter issued its dissolution judgment on April 5, 2023. We recount those portions of the 

dissolution judgment relevant to the issues on appeal and outline the overall distribution of the 

marital estate as context for the parties’ arguments on appeal. The trial court set forth its findings 

with respect to the value of the parties’ marital estate and then found a 55/45 division to be 

equitable, with Leslie receiving 55% and Edward receiving 45%. This included an award of 

$225,000 to Leslie for her interest in the marital residence and a net award of approximately 

$12,000 for her interest in Edward’s business (valued at $104,400) after deducting her 45% share 

of Edward’s father’s loan to the business. Regarding the parties’ debt, which the trial court found 

to be substantial, the trial court ordered each party to pay the credit card debt in their own name, 
7 

with Leslie’s estimated to be between $24,910 and $32,921 and Edward’s estimated to be 

$29,506. The trial court also ordered Edward to pay Leslie monthly child support in the amount 

of $200—an upward deviation from the statutory guidelines based upon the parties’ relative 

incomes (Edward: $100,000 in imputed income for 2022; Leslie: $65,941 in gross income for 

2022); ordered Edward to pay 60% and Leslie 40% of child-related expenses; and barred Edward 

from receiving maintenance from Leslie but reserved for three years the issue of potential 

maintenance from Edward to Leslie. 

¶ 17 The dissolution judgment included a section titled “Non-Marital Property,” in which the 

trial court found that certain mineral rights were Leslie’s nonmarital property and, following 

extensive findings on the issue, that a Charles Schwab investment account containing 

approximately $1 million that Edward received in July 2022 upon the death of his father (as a 

remainder beneficiary of a trust that had been created by Edward’s grandfather) was Edward’s 

nonmarital property. The trial court then concluded that “the remaining claims for non-marital 

property [which included the Roth IRA claim] were not traced by clear and convincing 

evidence” and ordered all marital retirement accounts to be divided on a 55/45 basis as of March 

31, 2023, with Leslie receiving 55% of the account and Edward receiving 45% of the account. 

¶ 18 Regarding the dissipation claim, the trial court noted that it had granted an oral motion 

for a directed finding pursuant to section 2-1110 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 

ILCS 5/2-1110 (West 2022) (“Motion in non-jury case to find for defendant at close of plaintiff’s 

evidence”)), finding that Leslie had not made a prima facie showing of dissipation but thereafter 

reconsidered its ruling and reinstated the dissipation claim only as it pertained to attorney fees. 

However, noting that it nonetheless maintained the discretion as to whether to award dissipated 

funds, the trial court declined to order Edward to reimburse Leslie for his use of the funds to pay 
8 

attorney fees. In doing so, the trial court reasoned, “This case was heavily litigated, and the Court 

notes both parties incurred substantial legal fees.” Accordingly, the trial court denied the 

dissipation claim.

¶ 19 D. Posttrial Proceedings 

¶ 20 Both parties filed motions to reconsider the dissolution judgment. Leslie moved for 

reconsideration of the trial court’s finding that the Charles Schwab investment account was 

nonmarital property, and Edward moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s finding that the 

Roth IRA was marital property. Edward asserted that the undisputed evidence demonstrated that 

his Roth IRA was acquired and funded prior to the marriage and that he did not contribute any 

additional funds to the Roth IRA during the marriage. Thus, Edward argued that he traced the 

source of the funds by clear and convincing evidence. 

¶ 21 Following briefing and argument, on August 2, 2023, the trial court denied both motions 

to reconsider. As for the Charles Schwab investment account, the trial court reviewed the 

evidence and reiterated that Edward proved by clear and convincing evidence that the account 

was his nonmarital property. Regarding the Roth IRA, the trial court reasoned that, while 

Edward testified that “it was the same account as the 2003 IRA and the account numbers were 

different,” and “2006 was, at least, referenced on that initial graph that the account was, in fact, 

open in 2006,” there was nonetheless a “gap in time from 2007 to 2012 where we have no 

account statements.” The trial court further reasoned, “[W]hile I do appreciate that there are the 

IRS information worksheets that are attached to the tax returns, those worksheets do specifically 

state at the top that they are for taxpayer records only. Those are not filed and, respectfully, I do 

not find that they meet the high burden of clear and convincing evidence to show that this was 

[Edward’s] nonmarital property; so, respectfully, the motion to reconsider is going to be denied.” 
9 

¶ 22 Edward timely filed a notice of appeal from the dissolution judgment and the order 

denying reconsideration. Leslie thereafter timely filed a notice of cross-appeal from the 

dissolution judgment and the order denying reconsideration. 

¶ 23 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 24 On appeal, Edward seeks reversal of the trial court’s finding that the Roth IRA was 

marital property. He argues that he met his burden of tracing the source of the funds in the 

account by clear and convincing evidence. Alternatively, Edward argues that the trial court 

should have minimally reimbursed his nonmarital estate for the $80,000 value of the Roth IRA 

before the parties’ marriage. Leslie counters that the trial court’s finding that Edward failed to 

adequately trace the source of the funds in the Roth IRA was not against the manifest weight of 

the evidence because Edward failed to adequately document the source of the funds. Leslie also 

argues that Edward forfeited his alternative claim that his nonmarital estate should be reimbursed 

$80,000 by failing to raise the issue in the trial court.

¶ 25 On cross-appeal, Leslie seeks reversal of the trial court’s denial of her dissipation claim. 

She argues that the trial court erred in holding that she failed to establish a prima facie case for

the entirety of her dissipation claim and also challenges the trial court’s denial of the claim as to 

attorney fees. Edward responds that Leslie failed to meet her initial burden of showing that 

dissipation occurred and that the trial court acted well within its discretion in denying the 

dissipation claim as to attorney fees.

¶ 26 We address each issue in turn. 

¶ 27 A. Roth IRA 

¶ 28 In distributing a marital estate, the trial court must first determine what constitutes marital 

property and what constitutes nonmarital property. In re Marriage of Dhillon, 2014 IL App (3d) 
10 

130653, ¶ 30. A trial court’s classification of property will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is 

against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. ¶ 29. A trial court’s finding is against the 

manifest weight of the evidence only when an opposite conclusion is clearly apparent from the 

record or if the finding is arbitrary, unreasonable, or not based on the evidence. Id.

¶ 29 Whether property is classified as marital or nonmarital is governed by section 503 of the 

Act (750 ILCS 5/503 (West 2020)). Marital property means all property, including debts and 

other obligations, acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage. Id. § 503(a). Section 

503(a) sets forth exceptions known as nonmarital property. Id. Among the exceptions are 

“property acquired before the marriage, except as it relates to retirement plans that may have 

marital and non-marital characteristics.” Id. § 503(a)(6); In re Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL 

App (1st) 190994, ¶ 40. 

¶ 30 Retirement plans are further addressed in section 503(b)(2) of the Act, which provides 

that individual retirement accounts acquired by or participated in by either spouse after the 

marriage and before a dissolution judgment are presumed to be marital property but that the 

presumption may be overcome by showing through clear and convincing evidence that the 

property was acquired by a method listed in section 503(a). 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2020); 

Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL App (1st) 190994, ¶ 41. The party claiming the property is 

nonmarital bears the burden of rebutting the presumption. Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL App 

(1st) 190994, ¶ 41. Any doubts as to the classification of the property will be resolved in favor of 

finding the property to be marital property. Id.

¶ 31 Edward posits that the Roth IRA was nonmarital property under the Act because he 

funded it before the marriage and he made no contributions to the account during the marriage. A 

party claiming that a retirement account is nonmarital may meet its burden of overcoming the 
11 

presumption of marital property by tracing, through clear and convincing evidence, that the 

property was acquired before the marriage. See In re Marriage of Stuhr, 2016 IL App (1st) 

152370, ¶ 52. “ ‘Tracing of funds is a procedure which allows the court to find that property 

which would otherwise fall within the definition of marital property is actually nonmarital 

property under one of the statutory exceptions.’ ” Id. (quoting In re Marriage of Jelinek, 244 Ill.

App. 3d 496, 504 (1993)). Tracing requires that the source of the funds be identified by clear and 

convincing evidence. Id. ¶¶ 52-55. Clear and convincing evidence is that “quantum of proof that 

leaves no reasonable doubt in the mind of the fact finder as to the truth of the proposition in 

question.” Bazydlo v. Volant, 164 Ill. 2d 207, 213 (1995). 

¶ 32 Edward challenges the trial court’s finding that he did not trace the funds in his Roth IRA 

by clear and convincing evidence. He argues that the documentary evidence and his 

uncontroverted testimony established that the Roth IRA predated the parties’ marriage and that 

he made no contributions to the account during the marriage. Edward cites the March 2002 IRA 

conversion form showing that, several years before the parties’ marriage, he converted a 

traditional IRA into Roth IRA x2523, the March 2003 statement for Roth IRA x2523, and the 

March 2007 account statement for the Roth IRA ending in x5294. Leslie points to the obvious 

discrepancy in the account numbers, while Edward cites his unrefuted testimony that the 

accounts were one and the same, albeit acknowledging the lack of supporting documentation for 

his assertion that the account numbers changed at some point between 2003 and 2005. Further, 

the March 31, 2007, statement listed balances for Roth IRA x5294 dating back to March 2006—

several months before the parties’ June 2006 wedding—thereby establishing that the Roth IRA 

existed before the parties’ marriage. Indeed, the trial court recognized as much in noting that 

“2006 was, at least, referenced on that initial graph that the account was, in fact, open in 2006.” 
12 

¶ 33 As for contributions, while Edward introduced account statements for the most recent 

years, 2013 through 2022, showing that he made no contributions to the Roth IRA, he did not 

introduce account statements for the years 2007 to 2012. The trial court focused on the years 

without account statements in finding that the Roth IRA was marital property, reasoning that the 

IRA Information Worksheets are for taxpayer records only and not filed and therefore, “I do not 

find that they [the worksheets] meet the high burden of clear and convincing evidence to show 

that this was [Edward’s] nonmarital property.” (Emphasis added.) However, this finding 

disregards Edward’s uncontradicted testimony. In addition to the worksheets, Edward testified 

unequivocally that he did not make any contributions to the Roth IRA for the years without 

account statements or any other year during the marriage. “[A] party’s testimony may be 

sufficient to trace whether marital funds were contributed to nonmarital property.” Marriage of 

Stuhr, 2016 IL App (1st) 152370, ¶ 55 (citing In re Marriage of Henke, 313 Ill. App. 3d 159, 174 

(2000) (the wife’s testimony was sufficient to trace the contributions of the marital estate to the 

nonmarital property by clear and convincing evidence)). While uncontradicted testimony, if 

inherently unreasonable or improbable, need not be believed (see Marriage of Stuhr, 2016 IL 

App (1st) 152370, ¶ 55), here, the trial court made no credibility findings with respect to 

Edward’s testimony, and there is nothing in the record to suggest his testimony was incredible. 

Indeed, in addition to his uncontradicted testimony, Edward introduced into evidence the parties’ 

joint federal tax returns for 2007 to 2013 as well as the attached IRA Information Worksheets for 

each year reflecting that he did not make any contributions to the Roth IRA in those years and 

that the basis in the Roth IRA remained precisely the same. Moreover, Edward testified that he 

could not have contributed to a Roth IRA in any of those years because his adjusted gross 
13 

income, as reflected on the tax returns, was above the maximum level allowed for Roth IRA 

contributions. 

¶ 34 Accordingly, this case is simply unlike the cases upon which Leslie relies, where the trial 

court’s classification of a financial account was held to be against the manifest weight of the 

evidence given the spouse’s uncorroborated or incredible testimony and absence of documentary 

evidence. See Marriage of Budorick, 2020 IL App (1st) 190994, ¶ 47 (the wife’s uncorroborated, 

“perfunctory, affirmative response to a leading question by her counsel as to the nonmarital 

source of the funds” in a retirement plan did not amount to clear and convincing evidence 

sufficient to overcome the presumption of marital property); Marriage of Dhillon, 2014 IL App 

(3d) 130653, ¶ 32 (the husband’s testimony, “which the trial court found to be completely 

lacking in credibility,” was insufficient to meet his burden of tracing the funds in a savings 

account by clear and convincing evidence). Here, given the documentary evidence presented at 

trial, as well as Edward’s uncontroverted testimony regarding the tax returns and worksheets and 

that he did not contribute to the Roth IRA during the marriage, the trial court’s finding that 

Edward failed to trace the funds was against the manifest weight of the evidence. 

¶ 35 We therefore reverse the trial court’s finding that the Roth IRA was marital property 

subject to allocation and remand the matter to the trial court for entry of an order awarding the 

Roth IRA to Edward as his nonmarital property. In light of our holding, we need not address 

Edward’s alternative argument that the trial court should have minimally reimbursed his 

nonmarital estate for the $80,000 value of the Roth IRA before the parties’ marriage. 

¶ 36 B. Dissipation

¶ 37 When dividing marital property, the trial court is required to consider all relevant factors, 

including those listed in section 503(d) of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2020). Among the 
14 

enumerated factors are “the dissipation by each party of the marital or non-marital property.” Id.

§ 503(d)(2); In re Marriage of Romano, 2012 IL App (2d) 091339, ¶ 86. Dissipation is the use of 

marital assets for the sole benefit of one spouse for purposes unrelated to the marriage while the 

marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. In re Marriage of O’Neill, 138 Ill. 2d 487, 

497 (1990). The party alleging dissipation must first make a prima facie showing that dissipation

has occurred. In re Marriage of Hamilton, 2019 IL App (5th) 170295, ¶ 78. Once this showing 

has been made, the burden shifts to the party charged with dissipation to show with clear and 

specific evidence how the funds were spent. Id. 

¶ 38 Whether a party’s conduct constitutes dissipation depends on the facts and circumstances 

of the particular case. Id. The trial court’s factual findings concerning dissipation will not be 

reversed on appeal unless they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the court’s 

final distribution of property is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Vancura, 

356 Ill. App. 3d 200, 204-05 (2005). Here, the procedural context is such that we are also

reviewing the trial court’s grant of Edward’s motion for a directed finding as to the entirety of 

the dissipation claim pursuant to section 2-1110 of the Code on the basis that Leslie failed to 

present a prima facie case as to all but the attorney fee portion of the dissipation claim. The 

parties agree that the standard of review for this issue is de novo. See Marriage of Romano, 2012 

IL App (2d) 091339, ¶ 100 (in ruling on a motion for a directed finding, if the trial court finds 

that the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case as a matter of law, the standard of 

review on appeal is de novo). We begin with this issue.

¶ 39 Leslie argues that she established a prima facie case of dissipation due to the undisputed 

evidence that Edward, within a 15-month time span after she filed her dissolution petition, 

depleted the entire $158,000 in their marital brokerage account. She also points out that Edward 
15 

was the only signatory on the account and transferred the money to his personal checking 

account over Leslie’s objection. We agree that that this evidence met Leslie’s burden of making 

a preliminary, prima facie showing at to the entirety of her dissipation claim. In squarely 

addressing the question of what a spouse needs to show to make a prima facie showing of 

dissipation, the court in Marriage of Hamilton noted that, “in many cases, the prima facie

evidence of dissipation consists of large withdrawals of cash from the parties’ bank accounts.” 

Marriage of Hamilton, 2019 IL App (5th) 170295, ¶ 80 (citing, inter alia, Marriage of Dhillon, 

2014 IL App (3d) 130653, ¶¶ 9, 11 (the spouse essentially depleted the marital funds in a savings 

account by making a few large transfers over a short period of time); Vancura, 356 Ill. App. 3d 

at 203 (the spouse cashed a $ 16,000 check made out to a family business without the wife’s 

knowledge); Henke, 313 Ill. App. 3d at 177 (the spouse took an IRA distribution of $33,669)). 

Moreover, a large withdrawal is just one way to make a prima facie showing of dissipation. Id. A 

prima facie showing of dissipation may also be established by showing that funds withdrawn or 

spent by a spouse over a period of months or years added up to a substantial amount. Id. ¶¶ 82-84 

(collecting cases).

¶ 40 Here, Edward did not dispute that the amount of $158,000 taken from the parties’ 

brokerage account was substantial, and the record supports Leslie’s characterization of the 

amount as substantial when considered in the context of the entirety of the marital estate. The 

account was depleted within a 15-month time period, including $76,000 between October 2021 

and January 2022. Accordingly, given the evidence presented, the trial court erred in holding that 

Leslie failed to establish a prima facie case of dissipation. See id. The trial court reasoned that 

Leslie did not present evidence that the funds were used for a nonmarital purpose (other than for 

attorney fees) and granted Edward’s motion for a directed finding on this basis. But this confuses 
16 

Leslie’s burden to make a prima facie case with Edward’s ultimate burden to show how the 

funds were spent. Leslie did not bear the initial burden on the latter issue. See id. ¶ 80 (“It is 

clear that the party claiming dissipation is not required to demonstrate that the funds at issue 

were used for a purpose unrelated to the marriage.”). Rather, she bore the initial burden of 

making a prima facie showing of dissipation, which she did by evidencing Edward’s depletion of 

the brokerage account, so as to shift the burden to Edward to demonstrate with clear and specific 

evidence how the funds were spent. See id. ¶¶ 78, 80. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s 

grant of Edward’s motion for a directed finding on the dissipation claim and remand for 

consideration of the dissipation claim. 

¶ 41 In this regard, we note that there did not appear to be any dispute that $20,000 of the 

challenged funds were given to Leslie for her legal expenses. Also, while the trial court found 

that Edward’s use of the funds to pay an unidentified amount in attorney fees amounted to 

dissipation (see In re Marriage of Berberet, 2012 IL App (4th) 110749, ¶ 58 (“The use of marital 

assets to pay fees to one’s attorney for the costs of the divorce constitutes dissipation of marital 

assets.”)), it nonetheless declined to order Edward to reimburse Leslie, reasoning that the case 

was heavily litigated and both sides incurred substantial legal fees. “Even where dissipation is 

established, the circuit court ‘is not required to charge against a party the amounts found to have 

been dissipated but may do so.’ ” (Emphases in original.) Id. ¶ 51 (quoting In re Marriage of 

Murphy, 259 Ill. App. 3d 336, 340 (1994)). Here, the trial court’s directed finding on the 

dissipation claim precluded it from considering the entirety of Leslie’s dissipation claim which 

should be reconsidered in its entirety on remand. Accordingly, upon remand, the trial court shall 

consider the dissipation claim in its entirety in resolving the claim and any impact on the division 

of marital property. 
17 

¶ 42 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 43 For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County 

and remand the cause with directions and for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 

¶ 44 Reversed and remanded.