1 No. 3–10–0039 Opin ion f il ed March 9, 2011

______________________________________________________________________________ IN THE A

PPELL ATE C OURT

OF IL LINO IS THIRD DI STRICT A.D., 2011 In re MARR

IAGE OF ) Ap peal f rom th e Ci rcui t Court ) of t he 13 t h Judi

ci al Ci rc ui t, EARL D. LICHTE NAUER, ) LaSall e County, Illi

nois, ) Pe ti ti on er -A pp el l an t, )

) No. 07–D–405 and ) ) JOA NNE L ICHTEN

AU ER, ) Ho no r ab le

) Jo se ph P. He t t el, Responden

t-Appell ee. ) Judge Presidin g.

______________________________________________________________________________ JUS TI CE WRIG HT deliver ed t he judg ment o f the co ur t , w ith o pinion. Pr esiding J ust ice Ca rt er and J ust ice Sc hmidt c onc ur re d in t he judg ment a nd o pinion.

______________________________________________________________________________ OPINI ON Ap pel l an t Earl D. Li ch tena uer an d app el l ee Joann e Li ch tena uer we re m arried i n 19 76. Jo an ne o r igin ally file d a dis so lut io n a ct io n in Will C o un t y, I llino is, in 2 00 5, wh ich she dis miss ed in 2007. I m medi atel y there af ter, Earl f i l ed a d i ssol uti on action

i n L a Sal l e Coun ty, Il l i noi s, i n 20 07. During a contested hearin g in La Sall e County, regar din

g the distribution of the mari tal assets, evidenc e wa s intr od uce d sho wing t ha t E ar l sold h is in terest in Ci

pher, Ltd. (Ciph

er), and Baum Si gns, In c. (B au m Si gns) , du ri n g th e c our se of th e d i ss ol uti on proce ed i n gs . J us t pri or to dis solv in g Bau m Signs in Mar ch 20 06, Bau m Signs’ c or po ra t e at t or ney, Mr . Jo yner, for med t he2

new corporati

on ca l l ed Corre ct El ectric, Inc. (Corre ct El ectric). A f ter sel l i ng B aum Signs , Earl be cam e an em ploye e of Correct El

ectric b egi

nn i ng i n 20 06 un til the date of

the c onteste d he ari

ng. During the contest ed hearin g, t he court received evi

dence that E arl’s li

ve-i n gi rlf rien d, Li nda Mauk, b ecam

e the president of Correct Electric wh en i t was formed and earn

ed over $12 0, 000 per year in sp ite o f having no pr eviou s co rp or at e exe cut ive expe rience or qua lif icat ions for thi s position. Mauk was also the maj or shareholde r, and the sha

reholder’ s agreem

ent allowed her to transfer her shares in the company to Earl at any tim e without t he other shareholders’ ap pr o va l. E ar l cl ai

me d no fi nan ci al in terest in Correct Electric b ey ond the approxim

ate $70,000
an nua l sal ary he rece i ve d as an em ploye e. The court found the ci

rcumstances surroundi

ng the structure of Correct Electri c were a

“ con tri v ed” a rra n gemen t. Th e c our t con si dere d M au

k’ s i n com e w h en deter m i n i n g Ea rl ’s ab i l i ty to ea rn i nc ome f or pu rpos esof setti ng a p erm an en t mai nte na nc e a wa rd f or J oan ne . Ba se d up on the section 504 f

actors o f the Il

li nois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/504 (West 2008)), the court awarded perm anen t mai ntenan ce to Jo ann

e i n the am ount o f $1,850 per
mo nt h. E ar l ap pe als t he pe rman en t maint en an ce aw ar de d t o Jo an ne . We affir m. BACK GROUND A ppe l l an t Ear l D. Li ch ten au er a nd appe l l eeJoa

nn e L i ch ten au er were marr i ed on Septem ber 25, 19 76. Joa

nn e had ori gi na l l y f i l ed a p eti tion f or di ssol uti on i n W i l l Coun ty i n 20 05. Se ve r al p r et r ial ma t t er s w er e a dd r es se d in t ha t ca se , inc lud ing an o r de rfo ran ag r ee d in t er im di stri bu ti on of mari tal as sets. The

as sets addr

es se d i n th i s i nte ri m orde r i nc l ude d pr oce ed s f rom t he sa le of E ar l’s inter est in his business c or po ra t ion, Cipher , a nd t he marit al res idence . Jo anne vol unta ri l y di sm i sse d tha t case on A ugust 2, 2007, just pri

or to proceedi

ng to a tri al
.1 In this document, it appears t he i ni tials “MM” refer to money m arket account s and “CC” refers to credit card acco unts. Additionall y, if the val

ues are disputed, Earl’s val ue is l isted fi rst and Joanne’s v

alue is in parentheses; ot herwise, the val ues are not disputed by the parties. 3 As a r es ult o f t ha t dis miss al, E ar l filed a p et it io n fo rdis so lut io n o f mar r iag e in La Sa lle County on A

ugust 9, 2007, when both parties we re 48 yea rs old an d their onl

y c hi ld was emancipa t ed. Pr ior t o t rial, o n Augu st 11, 200 8, t he co ur t or der ed t hat funds r ece ived fro m the proposed sal e of Baum Signs , another com

pan y partial l y owne d by

Earl , shou ld be hel

d in Earl’s la wyer’s trust fund un

til further order of the court. On A ugust 27, 2008, t he court awarded Joan ne tem porary mai nten ance of $1,200 per m onth. On the date of the contested heari ng, June 29, 2009, t he parties

joi ntly fi le d a “F in al Pretrial Sti pul ati on,”whi

ch sum ma rized the pa

rties’ curren

t assets and l

ia bi li ties, the va

lue s each pa rty as si gn ed to th em , the p ar ti es ’ c l ai m s a s to wh

eth er th ey weremari

tal or n on mari tal as sets and deb ts, and the dis

puted issue s to address at t he contested heari ng. 1 This d oc ument listed t he followi ng m arital assets titl ed i

n Earl ’s n am e: Am erican F unds $9,226.49 ING (C i ty of Repu bl i c) $2,191.75 (an IRA wi th Ci ty of Re publ ic ) IBEW Local

201 $129,7 69.94 ( a reti rem en t sav i ngs plan ) Sheridan Ban

k MM $15,005.33 Fi rst Bank MM $18,046.58 Citize ns Bank $4,942.20 Baum Sign s Contract $45,000 (Joanne l is ted val ue at $45,000 plus i

ntere st) 20 08 Ch ev r o let ve hic le Unkn own val ue (Joanne l

is ted val ue at $36,000) The pret rial

document li sted t he val

ues of assets in Joanne’ s nam e, as foll ows: 20 00 Mit su bish i ve hic le Unkn own val ue (Joanne l

is ted val ue at $4,900) Stof an , Aga zz i & C o. $2,520.18 Integr a Bank IRA $3,356.48 Ci pher 401(k) $8,724.99 Tell abs 401(k) $5,296.26 AIG 401(k) $1,429.664 Valic 401(k) $2,057.49 Residen ce (Joanne’s) $191,000 (Joanne l is ted val ue at $184,000 - disputed) National Ci

ty MM $49,000 National Ci

ty CD $31,661 Chase $2,800 West Coast Ins. $2 ,8 00 (J o ann e list ed no ne b ec au se it is t er m life ac cou n t) The debts li sted in this

join t pr etrial document were, as follows: Earl as deb tor: Stre ator Oni

ze d (a uto) $36,614.17 Ma rk A nd ers on $15,500 George E. Rydm

an & Assoc. $825 Wade Joy ner $4,500 Joan ne as deb tor: Uni

ted - Chase CC $1,870.95 Best Buy CC $719.98 Macy’ s CC $41.22 Ca rs on Pi rie S cott $723.74 A ttorn ey Fe es & Cos ts $12,500 (estim

ated) Resi dentia l Mort gage $142,000 (disputed) Also in this pretrial stipul ation, Earl cl

ai me d a Wach

ovia Securities account in

hi s nam e, val ued at $1,112.63, was hi s nonm

arital propert y a

nd Joann e cl ai me d an account she had at Fi rst National Ba nk , va lu ed at $1 3, 96 2, wa s h er no nma r it al p r o pe r t y. The h ea ri n g on th e c on tested f i n an ci al i ss ue s b eg an on Ju n e 2 9, 2 00 9. E arl

testi f i ed th at, in 2 00 6, he an d a no t he rpa r t ne r , Ko by E lleby, so ld t he ir in t er es t s in C iph er fo r$5 28 , 00 0 p lus full i ntere st i n B aum Signs , a su

bs i di ary of C i phe r. Both men sp l i t the ca sh eq ual l y an d e ac h took one-h alf i ntere st i n B aum Signs . Earl stated that t he Baum Sign s stock purchase agreem

ent, plai ntif f’ s exh ibit 7, dated Augu st 2, 200 7, sho wed t he sa le of his int er est in Baum Signs for $60 ,0 00 t o M ar k Co yle. The $6 0, 00 0 w as t o be pa id t o E ar l in five inst allme nt pa yment s o f $1 2, 00 0, wit h t he firs t be ing pa id in the fal l of 2009. Earl testif

ie d that he opened a new

mone y m arket account at the Sheridan Ban k,2 The n um b er s ref l ect Ea rl ’s wage s, b ut th

e tota l i n com e i n th es e ta x doc um en ts addi tion al l y ref l ect pas si ve and non pas si ve i nc ome and losse s to Earl

f rom C i phe r whi l e Earl owned an in

terest in that business. 5 where he deposited the f

irst i nstallm ent from the Baum

Sign s sal e, and sai d he h as not deposited or withdrawn an

y f unds f rom that account sin

ce that deposit. Prior to dis solv in g Ba um S ign s, in March 2006, the corporat e atto rney, Mr. Joyner, f ormed the new

corpo ration cal

le d Correct Electri c, Inc. (Correct Electri c), Earl’s curren t place of e

mpl oym ent. Earl was s

hown respondent’s ex

hi bi t 6, t he articl

es of i ncorporat ion f

or Cor rect Electric f

il ed on March 1, 2006, whi ch l i sted two di

rectors f or Correct El

ectric, Earl

and Ell eby . Earl

stated t hat he was mist ak en ly list ed as a d ire ct o ran d t ha t t he do cu men t wa s la t er ame nd ed
. He t es t ified t ha t he did not ha ve a f i na nc i al i ntere st i n C orrect Electric an

d was onl y an em ploye e of the c omp an

y . A cc ordi

ng to Ear l , si nc e M arc h 2 006 , h e h

asbe en em pl oyed by Corr ec t El ec tric a s a

seni or pr o jec t man ag er an d e ar ns a n ho ur ly ra t e o f $3 4. E ar l t es t ified t ha t , pr io rt o 20 06 , E ar l pa r t ially
ow ned a nd wo rk ed s olely at Cipher re ceiving gross annual wages of $99,944 (2002); $94,953 (2003 ); $7 6,664 ( 2004) ; $7 6,856 ( 2005)
. 2 In 2 006 , E ar l said he w or ked par t of t he year at Cipher and w or ked t he r emainder of t he year a t Correct Electric, after sell in g hi s in terest in Ciph er. E arl earned combi

ned gross wages of $70,792 from b ot h Ci

pher and C orrect Electri c for i n 2006. Earl testi fi

ed that, in 2007, he earned
an nua l wage s at Corre ct El ectric of $70,75 0 an

d $71,3 72 i

n 20 08. E ar l t es t ified t ha t , in 2 00 9, his gr o ss inc o me w as $7 1, 00 0, bu t his a nnu al n et inc o me w as ap pr o ximat ely $ 50 , 00 0, mak ing his
m onthl y net wages

f rom C orrect Electric approxi matel y $4,167
. Ea rl t est ifi

ed a bou t t he sa le of t he marit al res idence which wa s au t hor ized t hro ugh t he earlier divorce pro ceeding i n Wi ll County. He st ated t hat he fi led a m ot ion i n that earlier case6

ask ing t hat t he marit al res idence be liste d fo r sa le. At t hat t ime, Jo anne ha d bee n livi ng in t he marit al res idence while Ea rl wa s livi ng wit h Mau k, his girlfriend, at her re sidenc e. Afte r t he
ma rital home was on the m

arket for a period of tim

e, Earl asked the W

il l C ounty j udge to o rder the p arti es to acc ept an

off er at a m uch l ower pri ce s o the h

ouse c oul d be

sold. Joanne obj ected to acceptin g this reduced off

er and, accordin

gly , the parties en

tered an agreed o rder t hat the o ff

er cou ld b e accepted , but Jo anne would get the first $75,000 from those pr oc eed s and Ea rl wo uld g et t he balanc e. In a ddit ion, t he ag re ed o rd er st ipulat ed t hat t he
amo un t s in t his in t er im o r de rwe r e n o t ne ce ss ar ily t he fina l dis t r ibu t io n o f pr o ce ed s fr o m t he sa le
o f t he r es ide nc e. T he clo sing o cc ur r ed o n Ju ne 1, 20 07 , an d t he ne t pr o ce ed s fr o m t he sa le totale d $92,7 75. At the tim

e of the trial, Earl testif

ie d that he had n

o ownershi

p in terest in an

y real estate, but paid $ 1, 000 per mont h for “rent ” t o his g irlfriend, Mau k, who se mo nt hly m or t gag e pa yment was $1,600. Earl stated he l iv ed wi th Mauk i n a resi dence that she

purchased i

n Decem ber 2006, bu t he ha d p r ev io us ly lived wit h he rat a d iffer en t ho us e o wn ed by Ma uk
. E ar l sa id h e a lso pa id the ga s b i l l at h i s curren t res i de nc e, h

i s sha re of the Di rect TV b i l l

an d ph one bi l l , an d a sh are of the el ectric bi

ll . Earl sai

d he purchased his 2008 Yukon veh ic le in 2009, trading i

n hi s 2005 Sub urb an whi ch ha d a pa yoff of $ 22,648 at the ti

me. Ea rl t est ifi

ed t hat all of his unio n re t irement ben efi ts accrued durin

g hi s m arriage to Joanne. To the best of hi s recoll ection, Earl thought that t he First Bank money mar ket acc ou nt funds w er e de po site d fro m the s ale o f his share of t he Ci pher compa

ny, which sold for approxim ately $264,000. Earl testif ie d about the Will

County cas e, No. 05–D–1361, in terim order granting a dis tributi on of $100,000 each to Joanne an d Earl f rom Earl’ s lawy

er’s trust account, le avi

ng a3 T he r e is no ind ica t io n in t he r ec o r d a s t o wh er e E ar l’s sha r e o f t he mo ne y fro m t his

repai d l oan to Ba um Si gns was de pos i ted or spen t. 7 balance of $ 64, 000 . A lat er agr eed or der fro m the Will Cou nt y case d istr ibut ed t hos e r emaining fun ds to t he parties , giv

in g Joanne 60% or $38,400 and 40% to Ear l or $25,600. Earl stated that he depos i ted hi s sha re of thi s m one y i n th e F i rs t Ba nk ac cou nt, wh i ch now ha d a ba l an ceof $18,04 6.58. Ea rl said t hat he co uld no t invest in Cor re ct Elec t ric at t he t ime it was for med bec aus e he ha d n o mo ne y t o bu y any s ha r es . E ar l st at ed he an d E lleby h ad r es po nsib ilit ies at Co rr ec t E lec t r ic that were comparabl

e to t hei r previ ous responsi

bi li ties at Ci pher. However, Earl sai

d he h as fewe r responsi bi li ties at Correct Electric be cause he is not an owner. Earl al so stat ed that Mauk
was t he pr eside nt of t he co mpany, he and E lleby were s enior pr ojec t manage rs, and his sist er , w ho datesEl l eby , wasa part own er an d se cretary

of the com

pan y . Earl testif

ie d that t here were 10 in itial in vestors in Correct E le ctric, 8 of wh om were previ

ous empl oyees of Ci pher. Earl was

then shown responden

t’s exh ibit 12, whi

ch was a copy of the s

harehol ders’ agreem

ent for Correct Electric. Wi

thin that document, o ther shareholders cou ld n ot transfer their shares i

n the busi ness wit hou t t he co nsent of t he major ity o f the shar eho lder s, bu t a sp ecial clau se in t his agr eement stated, “[T]he sharehol

ders agree that Lin

da Mauk [Earl’ s gi

rlf rien d] may directl y trans fer h

er shares to Earl Li

chtenauer wi

thout off erin g them to the corpo ration or ot her sh areholde rs fi rst.” Earl i ndicated that Baum Signs, f or which he owned a h

al f-i nterest in the compan

y, l oaned si gni f i can t fun ds, a pproxi matel y $270,0 00, to Correct El

ectric to hel

p start upthe n

ew com pan y . Ea rl sa i d th at l oan wa s a l re ad y pai d of f wi th i n terest. 3 Ear

l tes ti f i ed tha t al l of the sh are s f or Correct E le ctric were sold bef ore he recei

ved the court-o rdered in

terim dis tributi on of $100,0008

i n A ugu st 2 006

f rom the Ci pher- sa l e f un ds . Ea rl cl ari f i ed tha t al l of the ca pi tal con tri bu ti ons f or Co rr ect Elec t ric w er e no t yet r ece ived at t hat t ime, but t he co mpany had a lread y est ablished w ho
wo uld be t he o wner s o r sha re hold er s o f the co mpany, includ ing Mau k, who pur chas ed 3 2% of t he
co mp an y. Ear l i ni ti al l y deni ed l oan i ng Ma uk m one y to i nv es t i n th e c om pa ny dur i ng hi s f i rs t da y of t es t imo ny. T he ne xt da y, E ar l testifi ed that hi s Fi

rst Bank account documen ted that $30, 500 was transferred out of hi s account on Septembe r 29, 2006, t o Mauk. Earl stated he reme mb ered that he l oane d tha

t mon ey to Mauk, a

l though he did not kn

ow where she

spent tha t mon ey . Earl cl ai me d he di d not t o know t ha t t he r e w as a t r an sfe rt o Co rr ec t E lec t r ic b y Ma uk , o n t he sa me day , i n the am ount of $30,85 0. Earl was asked why

he di d not use the $30,500 to purchase h is own stock for Corr ect Elec tric ra

the r th an l oan mone y to Ma uk, an d Ea rl sa i d h i s d i vor cel aw yer a t the ti me tol d h i m not to in vest in the compan

y. Earl also admitted t hat he wrot e a check to Ron Lyn jen, who also purchased shares in Cor re ct Elec t ric, for $5, 200 , in De cember of 2 006 , bu t st ill denied giving
an y one m oney to assist them

i n m aki ng a capi tal contri buti on to Correct El

ectric. Earl test if ied that Mauk had never run any busi ness, or o wned a constru ction busi ness, pri or to i nv es ti ng i n C orre ct El

ec tric a nd be com i ng the pre si dent of the com pa ny . Ma uk wasnot a previ ous empl oyee of C iph

er. Joanne’s

atto rney showed Earl res

pondent’s ex

hi bi t 16, which consisted of copies of Correct Electric’s ann ual f in ancial statements. According to those documen ts, t he sal es reven ue for Correct Electric i

n 2006 was $1.62 m

il li on, and i n 2007, sal

es
re venue was $4. 14 milli

on. Ea rl wa s sho wn do cument s sho wing Ma uk’ s inco me fro m Cor re ct Elec t ric in 20 07 a nd4 The 2002 tax return shows total wages to be this am ount, but t he total in

come was l

is ted as $ 111,29 2, i

nc l udi ng d i vi den ds f rom C i phe r totali ng $ 8,765. 9 2008. E arl’s atto rney obj ected t o Ear l testif yi ng about t hese documents on hearsay grounds. Joan ne ’sattorney

resp onde d tha

t Earl l i ve d wi th Ma uk an d sh ared e xpe ns es wi th her so Ear

l
coul d te sti

f y to hi s k now l edgeof he r i nc ome. E arl

wa s a l so p res en t dur i ng Ma uk’ s dep osi

ti on wh ere she testi f i ed to he r i nc ome . Aft er he ar ing t he ar gu men t s o f co un se l, t he co ur t rule d t ha t E ar l co uld t es t ify t o his knowle dge of the i

ncom e of hi s param our, Mauk. E arl was

then asked i

f h e was aware wh

at Mauk earned as i

ncom e general ly in 2007. Earl sai

d he di d not recall

what Mauk earne d in

2007
an d 2 00 8; in fa ct , he t es t ified t ha t he did no t r ec all w ha t he ea rne d in 20 07
. E ar l wa s t he n a sk ed if the already adm

itted Co rrect Electric documents would help ref resh hi s recollection and h e was sho wn t he Co rr ect Elec t ric d oc ument s. E ar l tes t ifi ed t hat Mau k ea rne d $1 27, 604 in 200 8 and $1 23 , 52 5 in 20 07
. E ar l fur t he rt es t ified t ha t t he bo ar d o f dir ec t o r s fo rCo rr ec t E lec t r ic det er mines his wage s, o ver which he ha s no co nt ro l. He st at ed t hat Mau k and his siste r, t he l arges t and sec ond l arges t sha rehold ers re spe cti

ve l y , determ i ne d the em ploye e wag es. Ea rl also t est ifi

ed t hat , d ur ing his marr iage t o J oa nne, t hey bou ght hou ses t o r eno vat e and resell f or a pro fi t whic h produced addi

tional in come. Joann

e di d not wor k durin

g the ma rriage except f or o ccasi onal part-t im e em ploy me nt. Earl was sh

own Joanne a

nd hi s j oint i ncom e tax returns from 2002 through 2007. In 2002, Earl ’s wages were $99,944. 4 Ea rl t est ifi ed t hat , in t he last co uple o f years, he did no t co nt inue t o bu y and r epa ir ho use s for pr ofit , bu t Mau k had bou ght and sold at least three hou ses. Earl said that Mauk solely received any

pro fi ts from those transact ions.10

Earl testi f i ed that the Stre ator Oni

zed a ccoun t is the l oan f or hi s 200 8 truck. Ea

rl
ex pl ai ne d that the C i

tizens Ba nk ac cou nt washi s day -to-day ch ec ki ng ac cou nt. Ear l tes ti f i ed to a chec k wr itt en o n Apr il 12, 2 007 , t o B ill Walsh for $24 ,0 74. 48, and t he memo o n t he co py of t he ch ec k s aid , “Lin da ’s ne w c ar . ” E ar l ad mit t ed t ha t ch ec k w as wr it t en t o pu r ch as e a ne w c ar fo rhis gi rlf rien d, Li nd a M au k. Ea rl also s ai d that he acc i denta

l l y om i tted a golf ca rt, pu rch as ed f or $5,534 in July

2007, as an asset in the pret rial stipulation. Earl wrot e another check in August 2007 f or $20,00 0, an

d Earl stated that m

oney wasspent on a

“s hoppi ng s pree.” Spec i f i cal l y , Earl
rem em be red bu y i ng som e sui ts, c l othe s, tool

s, a nd a c oupl e of piec esof an ti que f urn i ture f or hi m sel f on tha t shopp i ng s pree, b ut he did not b uy an y thi ng f or hi s gi rl f ri end wi th thi s m oney. Next, Joanne testif

ie d to some of

the item s lis ted in h er fi nan ci al aff ida vi t. She said that she p ur chas ed he r c ur re nt re sidenc e o n July 23, 200 7, for $18 4, 000 , a nd she paid a do wn pa yment of $45,900 wi

th in terim fun ds f rom the Ci

pher sal e. She f in anced the b al ance of

the sale price through a m ortgage f rom Nati onal

Ci ty B an k an d he r m onthl y mortgage pa

y men t was $ 1,272. Joanne testi fi

ed that she rem

odeled parts of that house, prior to movi ng i nto it, whi ch cost an addi tion al $40,00 0. Joanne s tated t hat she h

as been em ploy ed, ful l-ti me , by Al verno Cl in ic al Laboratories (Al verno) as an

off ic e coordinator sinc e May 2007 and sh

e earns $15.70 per hour f

or a 40-hour
wo rk wee k. She s aid her annua l income wa s ap pr oximat ely $31, 000 . Jo anne t est ifi ed t hat , d ur ing t he marr iage, Ea rl wa s t he pr imary wage ear ner for t he family and s he r an t he ho use hold . S he stated t hat she h

ad part-t im

e j obs durin

g the ma rriage, such

as wai tressin g and cl erica l work, but Al verno was h

er fi rst full-ti me job. Joann

e said she curren

tly attended jun

ior coll ege to o btain

an
ass oci ate’s

degre e, wh

i ch would take a

nothe r year a nd a ha lf to co mplet e. She t est ifi ed t hat she11

di d n ot kn ow w h eth er a deg re e w oul d i n crea se h er pa y ra te a t h er cu rre n t em pl oy men t. Joanne s ai d she h

as been dia gnosed wi

th Crohn’s di

sease an d spasm odic dy sphoni a, which is a neurological

dis order t hat aff

ects her vocal

chords and i

ntermi tt ently in terferes wi

th her speaki ng ab il ity . Joanne sai

d she recei

ves Botox treat me

nts on her v

ocal ch ords for that
con di ti on. She s tate d that C roh n’ s d i se as e i s a n a utoi m m une di se as e that a f

f ec ts h er i nte sti ne s, f or whi ch sh e has rece iv

ed i ntravenous treatmen

ts at t he h ospital every ei ght weeks f

or t he l ast year
an d a ha l f . Joa nn e te sti f i ed to pres cri

pti on m edi cations th at she also takes

regul arl y . Jo anne t est ifi

ed a bou t t he ac co unt s in the final pret rial st ipulat ion. Sp ecifically, Joa nne said t he First Nat ional Ba nk mo ney marke t acc ou nt , c ur re nt ly at $1 3, 962 , c ame fro m money she
re ceived as a re sult of a per so nal injury set t lement fr om a c ar acc ident in 200 1, and s he as ked t he court to fi nd i t was nonm

arital propert y. Joan

ne stated that her accounts at National C ity Bank, t he $3 1, 000 cer t ifi

cat e o f dep os it and t he $4 9, 000 money mar ket acc ou nt , w er e fund s re maining f rom mone y sh e re ce i ve d pu rs ua nt to th e e arl i er i nte ri m di stri bu ti on of the mone y f rom the sa l e of Ci phe r and the mari tal resi den ce. Jo an ne st at ed t ha t he rcu rr en t mo nt hly ea rning s w er e in su fficie nt t o mee t he rmo nt hly bills and sh e had to take money

from her sav in gs accounts to pay the bi

ll s. Joanne s ai d that she had been recei vi ng $1,200 as tem

porary m onthly ma in tenance pay

me nts, starting on Augus

t 27, 2008. At t he clo se o f the evidenc e, t he pa rt ies submit t ed p os t t rial briefs t o a rg ue t heir r esp ect ive po sitio ns, ba sed upo n t he evide nce a nd any su ppo rt ing cas e law. On Aug ust 13, 200 9, by agree men t of the parties b ase d upon

del ays i n f i l i ng th e posttri al bri ef s an d res pons es, the court
en t er ed a b ifur ca t ed jud gme nt o f dis so lut io n, t er minat ing t he pa r t ies ’ ma rr iag e a nd r es er ving his f i na l rul i ng on the p endi ng m atters.5 Based upon those f igures , Joanne recei

ved 60% of the total f

unds rel eased i n the earl ie r inter im distr ibut ion as set s, includ ing t he sa le of t he Ciphe r bu siness a nd t he marit al res idence , a nd Earl rece i ve d 40%. 12

The Court’s Oral Rul i ng on Res erved M atters T he t r ial ju dg e ma de an o r al r ulin g o n t he r ec o r d o n N o ve mbe r13 , 20 09 , dis cu ss ing his findings and r eso lving all remaining pro per t y issues. The co ur t not ed t hat neithe r p ar t y in the i n sta n t ca se argu ed th at th e i n ter i m distr i b uti on of as sets was

n ot a f ai r a n d e qui tab l e a gr eemen t. The j udge stated that he

would “ adopt tha

t previ ous [ag

reed i nteri m] di stri buti on an d add to it.” Accor ding to the co urt , t hat inter im agree ment incl

uded: pro ceeds fro m the sale of Earl’s in terest in the Ci

pher compa

ny, which i

nvol ved Earl and Joann

e each recei

vi ng $10,000 f

rom an initial distr ibut ion, and s ubse que nt ly receiving an a ddit ional $1 00, 000 eac h. B eyond t hat , t he
cou rt sta ted tha t Ear l rec ei ve d $2 5,6 00 a

nd Joa nn e re ce i ve d $3 8,4 00 i

n c ash ( f rom the ba l an ceof the fun ds f rom the sal

e of the Ci

pher bus in

ess). From proceeds of the m arital home , Earl recei

ved $12,177.60 and Joanne rec ei ved $75,000. 5 The c our t i n di v i du al l y addr es se d th

e i tem s l i ste d i n th e “ Fi n al Pre trial Sti pul ati on .”Fi rs t, the court found that the m oney ma rket account at the Sheridan Ban k, now $15,500.33, represented a portion of the proceeds f rom the sal

e of Baum

Sign s and awa rded each party

onehal f of that account. Next, the court addressed the Fi rst Bank m

oney ma rket account valued at $1 8, 04 6. Ac co r din g t o t he jud ge , E ar l t es t ified t ha t wa s t he r ema ining amo un t o f t he mo ne y in his poss ess i on f

rom th e ea rli er i nteri m di stri buti on of ass ets, thu s the

court awa

rded th at en tire
am ount t o Earl. The court found that t he Ci tizens Bank a

ccount of $4,942 “has

al ways been sol el y i n Ea rl ’s n am e” an d a wa rd ed th at f ul l am oun t to Ea rl . Th e c our t also n oted th at a Wachovia Securities account, consistin g of $1,112 , was money

that p assed to Earl as a13

bene f i ciary to hi s m other’ s estate an

d was a nonm ari tal ass et whi ch

be l onge d to Earl
. The court awarded Joanne’s curren t residen ce to Jo ann

e after f in din g that Joanne used pr oc eed s fro m the init ial inter im distr ibut ion o f asset s in Wil l Cou nt y to make t he do wn pa yment on t he r eside nce, and t he mor t gag e wa s so lely i n her name. The co ur t fou nd t hat t he St ofa n, Agaz zi & Co mpany invest ment a cco unt of $ 2, 520 was always so lely i n Jo anne’s name and awarded that ful

l a mount to her. The court then di scussed the F irst Nationa l B ank m oney ma rket
acc ount, val

ued a t $13,962 , whi ch

he l d the procee ds f

rom J oann e’s 2001 p erson

al i nj ury clai m . The co ur t fou nd t hat money wa s a mar ital as set , bu t awa rd ed t hat ent ire amo unt t o J oa nne. The
cou rt ad dre ss ed the two N ati ona l Ci ty Ba nk ac cou nts sol el y i n J oan ne ’s na me, i n th e a moun ts of $49,000 and $31,661. The court found the money in those accounts origin

ated from the f

unds Joan ne wasprev i ousl y awar ded i n the i nteri m di stri buti on of ass ets. Accordi

ngl y , the c ourt awarded both of those accounts to Jo ann e and di d not incl ude those as addi

tionalassets to be redis tributed i n the i nstant case. The c our t aw arde d b oth

pa rties th ei r re sp ecti v e v eh i cl es an d a n y eq ui ty or d eb t atta ch ed to thos e veh i cl es . The j udg e s tate d th

at n ei the r pa rty prov ed va l ue s rel ati ng to the di vi si on of pe r so na l pr o pe r t y, a nd he aw ar de d e ac h p ar t y wh at ev er pe r so na l pr o pe r t y t he y cu rr en t ly had in t heir p os sess ion. Re ga rdi n g Ea rl ’s i n com e, th e c our

t discussed that, after t he l iqui dation of the busin

ess
asse t s whe n Ea rl and his par t ner so ld Bau m Signs, so me of t he Ciphe r a nd/ or Bau m Signs personnel started t he n

ew compan

y, Correct Electric. The

judge noted that E arl testi fi

ed he h ad the oppor tunity

to buy in to Correct E le ctric, but chose n ot to do so at the advi

ce of hi s di vorce la wyer. The court found that, al though Earl was n

ot under any

requirem ent to buy i

nto t he n ew14

bu sine ss , he br o ug ht an o t he rind ividua l, his g irlfr ien d, int o t his n ew bu sine ss an d s he be ca me pres i den t of Corre ct El ectric. T he co ur t st at ed t he r e w as no ev ide nc e p r es en t ed t o sho w s he wa s q ua lified t o t ak e t his po sitio n wit h t he new co mpany and fo und t hat her “asce nsion in t he pr eside ncy of t his co mpany
o rt he pe r so n w ho wa s r un ning t his c o mpa ny w as so mew ha t co nt r ive d. ” T he co ur t fo un d t ha t it
was “very su spicio us” t hat t he at t or ney who re pr ese nt ed C or re ct Elec t ric, when fight ing sub poenas issued b

y Joan ne , ev en tuall y be cam e co-coun sel i n Ea rl ’sdi vorce cas e. The court de term i ne d that Ea

rl ha d s omeon e h e c oul d tru st, h i s g i rlf rien d, a nd ha d her p l ac ed

i n a pos i ti on wi th th e c om pa n y th at E arl wou l d h av e oth er wise h el d. T h e c our t f oun d th at E arl di d th i s to avoi d bri ngi ng those assets or oppo rtuniti es i nto t hi s di vorce proceedin

g. Accordin

g to the judge , the evi dence sh owed that, based on Earl ’s current sal ary at Correct Electric, he ma de between $71,00 0 an

d $72,0 00 per year. The court then

addre sse d cas e law re gardi ng i m puti ng i nc ome to a party . The

court referred to the Smith case ( In re Mar riage of Smit

h , 77 Ill . App. 3d 858 (1979)), which dis cussed t he ability of t he mainte nance -p aying spo use t o c ont ribut e t o t he o t her spo use ’s su ppo rt . T he court hel d that t he Smith case di stin guis hed the current

le vel of i ncom e from the ability

a spouse has to ear n i

ncome. In the instant case, the cou rt found t hat, facto ring i n Earl’s ability

to earn income a nd t he o ppo rt unit y he pas sed up, spe cifically his girlfriend’ s po sitio n wit h t he co mpany earni ng over $120,000 per y

ear, the court could award m ai ntenan ce to Jo ann

e i mputi ng $120,000 per yea r as Earl’ s abi

li ty to pro duce i

ncom e. The court t hen

gave detaile d fi

ndi ngs appl yi ng the f actors t o be considered when ma kin g a
ma in tenance awa

rd under secti on 504 of the Illi nois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act6 The co ur t not ed t hat it co nsider ed t hat Jo anne d id no t shar e a r eside nce w ith anyo ne and

Earl shared h i s res i den ce wi th h i s gi rl f ri end f or purpose s of

monthl y i nc ome and deb ts. 15 (Act) (750 ILCS 5/405 (West 2008)). The court found that Joann e’s m onthly net in come, bas ed upo n her salar y and so me invest ment inco me, w as a ppr oximat ely $2, 250 . T he co ur t t hen fo und that each of the partie s’ m onthly expenses were approxi

ma tely $3,200. 6 Look

i ng at f ac tor 2 of
section 504 of the A ct, the c ourt foun

d tha t Joann e’s monthl y ex penses ex cee ded h

er i nc ome . The co ur t det ailed t hat t his had be en a leng t hy marriag e, ove r 3 3 year s. F ur t her , t he co ur t fou nd that Joanne’s c

urrent sala

ry was the extent of he

r future earni

ng capaci ty an d that it had al

ready addre sse d the

ab i l i ty or poten

tia l earn i ng c apac i ty of Earl . The

court f ound th at both p arti es w ere
cu rrentl y l i vi ng at a gene ral sta nd ard of l i vi ng the y en j oyed dur i ng the marr i ag e b ut, b as ed on Jo anne’s income, she w ou ld no t be able t o d o a ll of the t hings t hat she w as a ble to do dur ing t he
ma rriage. The court als o considered the age s and h eal th of the parties. Both parties were 50 years old . Ac co rd ing t o t he evide nce, t he co ur t fou nd t hat Ea rl wa s in go od physical healt h at t he tim e of the he arin

g, but Joanne suf

fered f rom several c onditions whi ch requi red medi cal tre atm en t. The co ur t fou nd, in reviewing all of t he st at ut or y facto rs a nd co nsider ing t he lengt h of t he marriage, t hat Jo anne should receive permanent maintenance. T he cou rt det ermin ed t hat Jo anne’s monthl y e xpenses exceeded her i

ncom e by approxim

ately $950, which the court found to be a starti ng p oin t for th e m

ai nten ance a mount. Then , “l

ookin g at the totali ty of the c i rcum stan ces ,” t he co ur t said E ar l had t he ability t o e ar n subs t ant ially mor e t han wha t he wa s ac t ually earning a nd
aw ard ed Joa nn e $ 1,8 50 m

onth l y perm an en t mai nte na nc e. The cou rt de ni ed an y req ue st f or retroacti ve appl i cation of the m ai nten ance a ward.16

Fi nal ly , the court addressed the i ssue of distribution of retirem ent accounts that accrued du ri n g th e m ar riag e. The c our

t sta ted th at th ose ac cou n ts i n cl uded : th e A meri ca n Fu n ds , the C i

ty of Repub li

c, the I.B.E. W. Local

701 Retirem

ent Savi ngs F unds, the Integra Ban

k IRA, the Ci

pher 40 1( k) , the T el

l ab s 4 01 (k

), th e A IG 40 1( k) , a n d th e V al i c 4 03 (b ). Th e c our

t aw arde d e ach

pa rty
one -ha lf of eac h of t hos e ac co unt s. T he co ur t ent er ed t he judg ment o rd er on a ll remaining mat t er s o n D ec emb er 18 , 20 09 , an d E ar l filed a t imely no t ice o f ap pe al. AN AL YSIS On ap pea l, Ea rl ar gue s t hat t he t rial co ur t er re d by awa rd ing Jo anne a n exce ssive amo unt of perm anen t mai ntenan ce af ter im puting the gross i

ncom e of Correct Electric’s

presi dent, Lin

da Mau k, to Earl wh en determ i ni ng th e appropri ate am

ount of mai nten ance to be

awar ded to Joan

ne . Addi tional ly , Earl contests the am

ount o f m ai ntenan ce ordered because the court did n ot consider the uneq ual distribution o f m arital pro pert y, when bal

ancing Joanne’s monthly

needs and Ea rl’s
own m onthl y i nc ome and hous ehold

ex penses . Joanne argues

that t he court was withi

n i ts discretion to determi

ne Ea rl’s c ur re nt and fut ur e ability t o p ay maintena nce a fte r imput ing income t o E ar l. Fur t her , Jo anne c ont ends t hat t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion in t he division o f marita l pro per t y or awa rd her exce ssive
ma in tenance. A n aw ard of mai n ten an ce i s wi th i n th e s oun d di scre ti on

of th e tr i al cou rt, a n d a n appe l l ate
co ur t will not dist ur b a t rial co ur t ’s dist ribut ion o f pro per t y or awa rd of maint enanc e unles s t he tria l court ab use d i ts di scre tion or the award was ag ai

nst the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. In re Marr iage of Schiltz, 358 Ill . App. 3d 1079, 1084 (2005). An abus e of di scretion occurs whe n
no rea sona

bl e pers on woul

d agre e wi

th the posi tion adopted b

y the tri al court. Schw

artz v.17

Cortelloni , 177 Ill . 2d 166, 176 (1997). The determi nation of ma in tenance m

ust be bal anced agai nst the prope

rty a ward i n a di ssol uti on ca se. In re Mar

riage of Kob erlein , 281 Ill . App. 3d 88 0, 8 84 (1 99 6) . H owev er , a f orm er sp ous e req

ue sti n g m ai n ten an ce sh oul d n ot b e req ui re d to dis si pate assets or im

pai r capital if the other spouse has suf

fi ci ent assets to meet both hi s needs
and the ne edsof the f

orme r spous e. Kober

lein , 281 Ill . App. 3d at 885. Thus, we must consi der t he dist ribut ion o f the marit al asse t s as w ell as t he nee ds o f Joa nne and t he ea rning a bili t y and needs of Earl to eval

uate whether the trial

judge abused h is dis cretion i

n thi s case. Sec t ion 5 04 o f the Act enumer at es 1 2 fact or s t o be co nsider ed by a c ou rt when r ende ring
an aw ar d o f main t en an ce in a dis so lut io n c as e. 75 0 I LC S 5 /5 04 ( We st 20 08 )
. Ho we ve r , t his court has h

el d, “In awardi

ng m ai ntenan ce, the trial

court has wi

de l atitude to co nsi

der the needs of the parties a

nd i s not li

mi ted to the facto rs enum

erated in s ection 504.” Schiltz , 358 Ill . App. 3d at 10 84. The t rial judg e, in the c ase at bar , g ave a ver y det ailed r uling fro m the be nch co ncer ning his findings as t hey relat ed t o t he se ct ion 5 04 fa ct or s. T he co ur t fou nd t hat t his was a lengt hy
marriage of

over 3 3 y

ears and noted

that ea ch of the parti

es’ monthl

y ex penses were approxim ately $3,200. Further, t he j udge found J oanne’s monthl y n et inc ome, bas ed upon her
sa lar y and so me inv es t men t inc o me, wa s a pp r o ximat ely $ 2, 25 0 a nd t ha t Jo an ne ’s mo nt hly
ex penses ex cee ded h

er i nc ome . The judg e fo cus ed o n t est imony est ablishing tha t Ea rl wa s t he pr imary wage ear ner dur ing the ma rriage wh il e Joanne de

voted her tim

e to t aki ng care of the h

ome an d chi ld. Both parties
wer e 50 years old and c ur re nt ly l iving at a ge ner al st anda rd of living the y enjoyed d ur ing t he
marr iage. The co ur t co nsider ed t hat Jo anne’s cur re nt salar y was t he ext ent of he r fut ur e ea rning18

capaci ty an d, based on Joann

e’s i ncom e, she would not be abl

e to part ic ipa

te in a ll of the activ

ities that sh e was ab l e to enj oy d

uri ng th e m arriage. The court obs erved that Joan ne al so ha d he al th prob l ems wh

i l e Earl en j oye d good he al

th. Duri ng th e di vorce procee di ngs , i n addi tion to pay i ng $ 1,200 f

or tem porary mai nten ance, Ea rl
wa s a bl e to “l oan” thousands of dol

la rs to Mauk and another fi nan ci al in vestor of Coll

ect Electric, buy Mauk a new

car for $24,074, purchase a n ew Yukon truck and golf

cart, and go o n a $20,000 “sh opping s pree” whi le the div orce pro ceedi

ngs were pen

din g. Based on these f

in din gs, we
co nclude t he t rial co ur t ’s de cision t o a war d pe rmanent maintena nce t o J oa nne wa s su ppo rt ed by the record. Next, Earl cl

ai ms that t he court’s am

ount o f m ai ntenan ce was ex cessi ve b ecause the trial
co ur t did no t fac t o rin t he un eq ua l pr o pe r t y dis t r ibu t io n, fav o r ing Jo an ne , se t o ut in t he int er im
or der , w hich dist ribut ed t he pr oc eed s fro m the s ale o f the marit al home a nd t he pr oc eed s fro m the sal e of Earl ’sshare of

the C i phe r bu si ne ss. We ackn

owledge that the Wi

ll County order awarded $223,400 (60%) o f those f unds to Joanne an

d $147,777 (40%) o f those f unds to Earl. The j udge f oun d th at n ei th er pa rty i n th e i n sta n t ca se argu ed th at th e i n ter i m di str i b uti on of as sets was

n ot a fair and equ itable a gr eement , so he us ed t hat as his st ar t ing po int t o d istr ibut e t he r emaining assets. We agree this was a sound approach in this case. Havi ng determi

ned the trial

court correct ly

deci ded perma

nen t mai ntenan ce was app ro pr iate , w e t ur n t o E ar l’s co nt ent ion t hat he did no t have t he ability t o p ay maintena nce in t he
amou nt or der ed by t he co ur t in this ca se. The cas e law p ro vides t hat t he ability of t he maintena nce- paying sp ou se t o c ont ribut e t o t he o t her 's su ppo rt can be pr op er ly dete rmined by
cons i deri ng both curre

nt an d f uture abi l i ty to pay ongoi ng m ai nten an ce. In re Mar

riage of Smit

h ,19

77 I ll. App. 3d 8 58. In Smith , a ca se w hi ch i s f actual l y si m i l ar to the case a

t bar, the parties were m

arried f or 34 years an

d the 52-yea

r-old wi fe h

ad little prospect of earni

ng an ade qua t e sa lary t o mee t her need s. I n t hat cas e, t he hus band vo lunt ar ily re duc ed his inco me by reti ri ng d uri ng th e pen di ng d i vorce procee di ngs i n a n a ttempt to avoi d pay

i ng m ai nten ance. Smith , 77 Ill . App. 3d at 862. In that case, t he court held:

“In o ur view, t he wo rd ‘ability’ indicat es t hat we s hou ld co nsider t he level at which t he maint en an ce - pa ying sp o us e is ab le t o co nt r ibu t e, no t mer ely t he lev el a t wh ich he is willi ng t o w or k. Thu s, w e ho ld t hat it w as a ppr op riat e fo r t he t rial co ur t t o lo ok at t he husb and' s prospective i

ncom e, as well as his current actual i ncom e, in setting the l

evel
o f main t en an ce , pa r t icu lar ly whe r e t he diffe r en ce be t we en ac t ua l an d p o t en t ial inc o me is a resul t o f totall y v oluntary retirem ent.” Smith , 77 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 862. In Smith , the court considered the ci rcumstances surroundi

ng the h usban d’s retirem

ent as i t re l ate d to th

e d i v orc e p roc ee di

n gsan d f oun d th at h i s m oti v es f or re ti re men t we reca l l ed i n to question
. Smith , 7 7 I ll. App. 3d a t 862 -6 3. In t hat cas e, t he t rial co ur t det er mined t hat t he hus ban d c ho se t o re sig n his p o sit io n as pr es ide nt o f a c o mpa ny du ring t he p end enc y of a di ssol uti on of marriage proceed

i ng to b ecom

e a c onsu l tant wh i ch reduc ed h

i s i nc ome by 50%. Smith , 77 Ill . App. 3d at 862-63. On appeal, the court upheld the trial court ’s determi

nation tha t t he hu sba nd ha d t he ab ilit y t o pa y mo r e ma int en an ce t ha n his cu rr en t r et ire men t inc o me w o uld
see m to all ow ba sed on h i s posi tion at his previ

ous em ploym en t. Smith , 77 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 863. Re ga r din g E ar l’s cu rr en t an d p r o sp ec t ive ab ilit y t o pa y maint en an ce , t he r ec o r d r ev ea ls t hat Ea rl wa s hea lthy at t he t ime of t he divo rc e. He vo lunt ar ily op t ed t o s ell his share of t he Ci pher and B aum

Sign s busi ness es duri

ng the pen

dency of the di vorce. Fi rst, t he trial

judge noted20

that Earl was not under any requirem ent to buy i

nto t he n ew busi ness , Correct Electri c, after sel l i ng h i s ownersh

i p i ntere st i n C i phe r and Bau m Signs . Nex

t, the court ob serv

ed th at, whi l e Earl volun taril y c hose not t o bu y sha r es in t he ne w c o r po r at io n hims elf, E ar l vo lun t ar ily br o ug ht his gi r lfr ien d, Ma uk , int o t he ne w b us ine ss by loan in g her m oney to becom e the m aj ority sh areholde r i n the new corp orati on tha t woul d ul

tim atel y com pensate Ea

rl as a n h ourl y em ploye e. The court fou nd t hat Mau k’s “a sce nsion in t he pr eside ncy of t his co mpany or t he pe rso n who was ru nning this compan y was some

what contrived.” The tria l j udge wasi n the b est posi

tion to jud ge th e b el i ev ab i l i ty of the wi tnes ses . In re Marriage of Nagel , 133 Ill . App. 3d 498, 502 (1985). After considerin g the evi dence, the trial judg e fo und t he pr eside ncy of E ar l’s girlfriend was a “co nt rived ” bus iness ar ra ngement and
co nclude d t he und isput ed hist or ical event s de monst ra t ed t hat Ea rl had set up his live-in g irlfriend t o be pr eside nt in the ne w co mpany in or der t o r eap t he full fi nancial bene fits fro m the s er vices he prov i de d to th i s b us i ne ss . The c ourt f

oun d that Ea rl di d th i s to a voi d bri ngi ng thos e a ss etsor opportuni tie s i nto this di vorce procee di ng. It i s w el l es tab l i sh ed i n I l l i noi s, “ [i]n orde r to i m pute i nc ome, a cou rt m us t f i nd tha t one of t he fo llo win g fa ct o r s a pp lies : ( 1) t he pa yo ris vo lun t ar ily une mplo yed ** *; ( 2) t he pa yo ris attempting to evade a support obli gation ***; or (3) the pay or has unreasonably

fai le d to take advan tage of an em

ploy me nt oppo rtunity .” In re the Marriage of Gosney , 394 Ill . App. 3d 1073, 107 7 (2 009 ); In re Marriage o f Ro gers, 213 Il

l . 2d 129(2004 ). In t he inst ant cas e, Ea rl wa s emplo yed so t he first fact or did no t app ly. The c ou rt fou nd the se con d f ac tor to b e p res en

t, sp ec i f i cal l y tha t Ear l wa s a ttem pti ng to evade a

su ppor t obl i ga ti on b as ed on th e “con tri v ed” stru ctu

reof th e C orre ct E l ectri

c c orp ora ti on an d th e s al ar y pai d to21

Ea rl’s g irlfriend, t he named pr eside nt of Co rr ect Elec t ric. As t o t he t hird fac t or , t he co ur t fou nd t hat Ea rl pa ssed up t he o ppo rt unit y to have he ld his girlfriend’ s po sitio n as p re sident of t he compan y, earn in g over $120,000 per year. Consequen tly, the court awarded m

ai ntenan ce af ter imput ing $1 20, 000 of his gir lfriend’s a nnual sa lary t o E ar l when co nsider ing Ea rl’s p re sent and pot entia l a bi li ty to pro duce i

ncom e. Th e c ourt’ s f

i nd i ng tha t the ci rcu m sta nc essu rrou nd i ng Ear l ’s cu rrent wag esof app ro ximately $71 ,0 00 w as st ru ct ur ed in a c ont rived fashion, t o bo t h co ncea l his full cur re nt i nc ome a nd m i ni m izethe va l ueof hi s f i na nc i al as sets th roug h Mau k, h i s g i rlf rien d, w asbase d on t he evide nce p re sent ed a nd t he co ur t ’s o wn cr edibility det er minatio ns. F or example, Ea rl t old t he
co ur t he wa s emplo yed by Co rr ect Elec t ric as a se nior pr ojec t manage r a nd wa s co mpensa t ed by the corpor ation at the rate of merel y $34 pe r hour, in s

pite of h is previous corpo rate experie nce as bot h an o wner and inves t or in Cipher. The co ur t hear d evide nce t hat est ablished E ar l’s girlfriend had n o previous corporat e experi ence b ut brought a signi

fi cant salary i

nto t he h ousehold wh

ic h she shared wi

th Earl. Furt her, the evidence also est abl ish ed that , although Ear l di

d not purchase sha r es in t he co r

po r at io n, t he sha r eh o lde r s a gr ee men t r eq uir ed o t he rsha r eh o lde r s t o o bt ain
co nsent befo re t ra nsferr ing t heir sha re s o f the business , bu t was st ru ct ur ed t o a llow o nly one shareh older, Earl’ s gi

rlf rien d, to transfer h

er shares to Earl i

n the f uture without t he prior appro val of th e oth er sh areh ol ders . Th

e rec ord also s h owe d th at E arl prov i de d f

un dsto hi s g i

rlf rien d to buy t he major ity shar es o f Cor re ct Elec t ric by adva ncing t hos e fund s t o he r a t t he t ime she pu r ch as ed t he co r

po r at e s ha r es . Ne ar t he t ime M au k p ur ch as ed he rsha r es , wh en Co rr ec t E lec t r ic was i ncorporat ed, Earl was l

is ted as a director of Correct E le ctric but that document was l ater
am ended. Earl

testifi ed that hi s di

vorce la wyer advi sed hi

m n ot to in vest i n the com pany . Correct22

El ectric i s a c omp an

y very si m i l ar to the C i

phe r com pan y prev i ousl y partial l y-owne d by

Earl
. Moreover, t he record in

cl uded testim

ony i ndicatin g that t he current m

aj ority owners of

Correct Elec tric, E arl ’s

gi rlf ri en d a nd Ear l ’s sister, e sta

bl i sh ed the am oun t of wage s Ea

rl woul d b e p ai

d f or hi s responsi

bi li ties as project man

ager for Correct E le ctric. Earl conten ds that the h

e nev er ea rne d ove r $100 ,000 i

n w ages i n the pas t and the c ourt sho uld no t impu t e t ha t amo un t he r e. T his v iew o ve rsimp lifies E ar l’s ea rning ab ilit y bec au se it
o nly co nsid er s t he a mo unt o f w ages Cipher paid t o E ar l befor e t he divo rc e wit hou t co nsider ing the in vestm ent in come Earl

deriv ed durin g the ma rriage f rom his ownershi

p in terest in Ci

pher whil e also dr awing separat e wages fro m Ci pher. For e xampl

e, t he 2002 t ax ret urn show s Ear l’s to tal wages to be $99,944, but the tot al incomelist ed in t he 20 02 t ax r et ur n sh o ws E ar l’s inc o me to be $111,292, takin

g in to consideration the di

vi dends Earl

recei ved f rom Ci pher tot alin

g $8,765. In the i nstant case, the trial

court recei

ved ev ide nce that the contrived ci

rcumstances
surroun di ng th e executi ve i nc ome Earl ’sl i ve -i n gi rl f ri end br ought i nto hi s househ old al l owed Ear

l to underestimate hi s cur re nt and p ot ent ial abili t y to pay co ur t -o rd er ed maint enanc e by mini mizing the i nc ome he rece i ve d f rom C orrect Electric. Her e, t he co ur t ’s finding t hat Ea rl wa s at t empt ing to evade supp ort ob l i ga

ti ons wa s n ot con trar y to the man i f es t we i gh t of the ev i denc e. B as ed

on th i s f i n di n g, we a l so c on cl ude th e tr i al cou rt p rop erl y deter m i n ed certai n f actorswerepr es en

t to allo w t he co ur t t o impu t e a dd it io na l inco me t o E ar l, mea su r ed , in p ar t , by r efe r en ce t o his gi rl f ri end’s contri ve d executi

ve sal ary . Acco rd ingly, we c onc lude t he t rial co ur t did no t abus e its discr et ion by imput ing t he add itio nal ability to ear n income t o E ar l and t hen aw ar ding $ 1, 850 per mont h as p er manent
ma in tenance f or Joanne.23 CONCLUSION Fo rt he r ea so ns s t at ed ab o ve , t he jud gme nt o f t he cir cu it co ur t o f La Sa lle C o un t y is aff irm ed.