2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

No. 2-19-0315 

Order filed August 17, 2021 

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

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

______________________________________________________________________________ 

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

______________________________________________________________________________ 

In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

CAROL TAYLOR, ) of Du Page County. 

) 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

) 

and ) No. 17-D-952 

) 

GARY TAYLOR, ) Honorable 

) Robert E. Douglas, 

Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER

JUSTICE BIRKETT delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices Hutchinson and Schostok concurred in the judgment. 

¶ 1 Held: The trial court's classification of husband’s retirement accounts as marital property 

was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where husband’s commingled 

nonmarital funds were transmuted to marital property. 

¶ 2 Respondent, Gary Taylor, appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County, 

dissolving his marriage with petitioner, Carol Taylor. Specifically, Gary appeals the trial court’s 

classification of certain retirement accounts as marital property. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 On December 16, 2000, Gary and Carol Taylor were married. The parties produced no 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 2 - 

children while married, although each party had children from previous marriages. During their

marriage, Carol made “less than $600 [a] year” working for Ring, a company that made video 

doorbells, while Gary worked as an endodontist before he retired in 2010. Aside from her work 

for Ring, Carol primarily spent her time doing chores at home because the parties agreed that Carol 

need not otherwise work during the marriage. Gary also told Carol that he would handle the parties’ 

finances during the marriage. 

¶ 5 On May 5, 2017, Carol filed a petition for dissolution of marriage, and a trial was held over 

the course of several days between August and December 2018. One of the issues at trial was the 

classification of Gary’s various retirement assets as being either marital or nonmarital. Those 

assets included a TIAA-CREF individual retirement account (TIAA IRA), a Federal Asset 

Management Account (FAM account), and an IRA at Old Second National Bank (Old Second 

IRA). Both parties retained experts who testified about the marital or nonmarital nature of Gary’s 

retirement accounts. 

¶ 6 A. Christiana Zouzias’s Testimony 

¶ 7 Christiana Zouzias testified that Carol had retained her “to analyze the earnings, balances, 

[and] activity in [Gary’s] retirement accounts to understand the financials of [the parties], 

specifically the retirement accounts.” In addition to testifying, Zouzias also prepared a report 

detailing her financial analysis. In her report, Zouzias sought to “determine what the beginning 

balances [of the accounts] were as of the date of marriage,” the accounts’ current totals, “as well 

as earnings, transfers[,] *** deposits[,] and distributions during the marriage.” 

¶ 8 Zouzias identified four retirement assets that Gary had as of the date of the parties’ 

marriage: an Allmerica Financial Life Annuity IRA (Allmerica IRA), a profit-sharing account 

from his dental practice (PSP), the TIAA IRA, and a Fifth Third Bank IRA (FTB IRA). She also 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 3 - 

discussed the various accounts that he opened during the parties’ marriage. Zouzias’s findings 

regarding some of the pertinent accounts—as supplemented by her report—follow below. 

¶ 9 1. The Allmerica IRA

¶ 10 Zouzias first discussed Gary’s Allmerica IRA, agreeing that there were previously 

“questions” as to whether the account was “[Gary’s] prior to marriage.” However, Zouzias 

eventually received statements showing that “as of 1997, three years prior to the marriage,” Gary 

placed $200,000 from other existing accounts into the Allmerica IRA. Zouzias also received 

documents showing “significant increases and decreases in [the Allmerica IRA] between 1997 and 

1998,” and a statement that confirmed that the account held $276,069.14 as of December 31, 1998. 

However, Zouzias never received a statement showing the Allmerica IRA’s balance “as of 2000.” 

For this reason and because the account showed “so much volatility,” Zouzias was never able to 

find the balance of the account as of the parties’ marriage.

¶ 11 Relying on a tax document from 2005, Zouzias’s report originally listed the Allmerica’s 

account marital contributions as totaling $321,802. However, as of the date of her testimony, 

Zouzias did not know how accurate that figure was because, again, she did not “know what the 

balance [of the account] was as of the marriage date.” Prior to receiving the 2005 tax document, 

she had only received statements from the account leading up to December 1998, which, again, 

indicated the value of the account as $276,069.14 at that time. Zouzias agreed that she was unsure 

whether the Allmerica IRA entirely consisted of premarital funds, because she “[did not] know 

what happened between 1998 and 2005 [with the account].” In compiling her report, she was never 

given any evidence “to show any contribution to the Allmerica IRA between the time period of 

1997 and 2006” to know whether the account retained its nonmarital status. 

¶ 12 2. The PSP 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 4 - 

¶ 13 Zouzias testified that Gary’s PSP was a type of retirement plan that shared the profits from 

Gary’s dental practice. Zouzias was able to “identify and track the monies that [Gary] deposited 

into [the] account during the marriage,” before it was closed. At the time of the parties’ marriage, 

Gary had deposited approximately $319,581 into the account. Between 2001 and 2003, while the 

parties were still married, Gary deposited $80,500 of marital funds into the PSP in three separate 

increments. Zouzias was able “to track the earnings on that account based on statements and some 

estimates,” finding that by the time the PSP closed, the $80,500 in marital monies that was 

deposited into the account grew to approximately *** [$]96,000.” Aside from the deposits 

mentioned above, Zouzias believed that no direct contributions were made to the PSP between 

2000 and 2008. 

¶ 14 In 2008, the PSP was essentially “terminated,” and Gary transferred $423,109 from the 

PSP into the TIAA IRA and “an additional [$]50,000 went into his [FAM account].” After these 

transfers were completed, “[a] minor amount of $670” was left in the [PSP], “which was 

[eventually] moved [to the TIAA IRA] in 2009.” Zouzias was unable to determine what happened 

to the $96,000 after Gary closed the PSP because, after the “[PSP] was combined with the [TIAA 

IRA],” “some money went into [the FAM account,]” but Zouzias was unable to conclude “which 

money that was.” On cross-examination, Zouzias disagreed that, even if all the PSP’s marital 

contributions “went into the [TIAA IRA]” and not the FAM account, [then] she would be able to 

“calculate the percentage of what was [marital] monies versus [premarital] monies.” 

¶ 15 3. The TIAA IRA

¶ 16 Since approximately 1977, Gary maintained the TIAA IRA. As of the date of the parties’ 

marriage, Gary had deposited approximately $317,000 of nonmarital monies into the TIAA IRA. 

In 2002, Gary transferred $255,402 from his existing, premarital FTB IRA into a Nationwide IRA, 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 5 - 

which was opened that year. In 2005, Gary transferred $325,023 from the Allmerica IRA into a 

new, second Fifth Third IRA that was opened that year. In 2007, Gary transferred $343,738 from 

that second Fifth Third IRA and $325,747 from his Nationwide IRA into a Bank of Downers Grove 

IRA (Downers Grove IRA), which was opened that year. Zouzias agreed that both the Nationwide 

IRA and Downers Grove IRA funds could not be traced back to Gary’s nonmarital funds, because

she could not verify whether the Allmerica IRA—which contained funds that eventually rolled 

over into Gary’s second Fifth Third IRA—contained marital funds. 

¶ 17 In 2008, Gary pulled $473,109 from his PSP and placed $423,109 of that money in the 

TIAA IRA. Zouzias testified that “it would be a guess” whether this money included any of the 

$96,000 of marital money previously contained in the PSP. In 2009, $721,402 was transferred 

from Gary’s first Downers Grove IRA into two new Downers Grove IRA’s, the Old Second IRA, 

and a State Bank of Countryside IRA (Countryside IRA), all of which were opened that year. That 

same year, $49,330 was moved from the TIAA IRA to the FAM account. Zouzias was unable to 

determine whether this transfer included any marital contributions. In 2010, the money from the 

two newer Downers Grove IRAs and $111,382 of the Countryside IRA were all moved to the 

TIAA IRA. 

¶ 18 When asked whether the transfers of the Downers Grove IRA funds and the Countryside 

IRA funds deposited into the TIAA IRA “diluted any portion of the [marital] monies that were 

placed into the [TIAA IRA] through the [2008] transfer from the [PSP] into the [TIAA IRA],” 

Zouzias responded, “I don’t agree with that.” According to Zouzias, such a conclusion was 

impossible to reach where the premarital and marital monies have “been combined and blended.” 

Zouzias further explained that the nonmarital and marital assets in Gary’s TIAA IRA were blended 

twice, once in the PSP, and again when the PSP was combined with the TIAA IRA. 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 6 - 

¶ 19 While Zouzias’s report indicates that the balance of the TIAA IRA was $1,258,690, as of 

the date of her testimony, she testified that balance was now “slightly” higher. 

¶ 20 4. The FAM Account 

¶ 21 Zouzias explained that that the FAM account was “essentially a custodial account that 

holds underlying real estate assets. It’s—the custodial account is the Federal Assets plan, and then 

*** underneath that is an IRA, and underneath that, the actual assets are real estate developments 

in which [Gary] has subscriptions and ownership interests.” She agreed that Gary was able to 

specifically decide which of these subscriptions he would like to “participate in.” She further 

agreed that when Gary “purchased as a subscription any of the assets” of his FAM plan, he received 

“monies outside of when [those] assets sell,” in the form of a regular dividend—one that was either 

“quarterly, monthly, or annually.” These dividends were deposited “into the cash balance within 

his IRA within [the FAM account], and then that cash [was] used to purchase additional assets, or 

it sits.” For Gary, this money was “predominately” used to purchase “subsequent real estate 

assets.”

¶ 22 Gary’s PSP had earlier held a $50,000 “real estate asset” in a property entitled SC 

Egerkingen, but once the PSP was divested, that asset was deposited into the FAM account. This 

deposit represented the $50,000 divestment from the PSP into the FAM account that took place in 

2008. According to Zouzias’s report, in 2009, an additional $50,000 was placed in the FAM 

account, with $670 representing the last amounts of the PSP and the remaining $49,330 coming

directly from the TIAA IRA. In 2010, another $50,000 from the TIAA IRA and $140,000 of Gary’s 

Countryside IRA were both transferred to the FAM account. Again, the Countryside IRA was 

initially funded from Gary’s second Downers Grove IRA, which in turn was funded by his 

Nationwide IRA and the second Fifth Third IRA. The second Fifth Third IRA contained funds 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 7 - 

tracing back to Gary’s Allmerica IRA. In 2012, another $50,000 was transferred to the FAM 

account from the TIAA IRA. As of the date Zouzias’s report was compiled, she found that the 

balance of the FAM account was $501,685. At the time of Zouzias’s testimony, she reported that 

the “cost basis value” of the FAM account was now closer to “550-ish-thousand.” 

¶ 23 Schedule III of Zouzias’s report was entirely dedicated to the various transactions and 

investments made through Gary’s FAM account. In explaining her rationale behind including this 

schedule, Zouzias explained some of the difficulties she had in tracing the FAM account’s assets 

to any premarital assets:

“I created this schedule because I was attempting to trace the current assets back to 

the originating assets pre-marriage, and I truly was not able to do that because the money 

moved multiple times between accounts, from one account to another. 

And what’s not evident here, *** is that even within the line of [the FAM account], 

there are multiple *** transactions and multiple movements of that money, purchasing of 

assets, selling them, purchasing other assets, selling some in cash, some in other assets***. 

 *** 

Then when I started digging into the [FAM account], I realized that there were 

multiple transactions.

So[,] *** there were multiple purchases, multiple sales, and then other purchases

that are still being held within [the FAM account].

So[,] it’s not nearly as simple as looking at one balance, one asset[,] and tracing 

that to the ending balance. It’s just not possible.” 

When asked whether she was able to determine which FAM subscriptions “were purchased with 

money from another account compared to monies that were already in [the FAM account], Zouzias 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 8 - 

answered, “It’s impossible to determine that.” 

¶ 24 Zouzias was similarly unable to identify how much of the FAM account’s subscriptions 

specifically “came from the initial $80,500 dollars of contribution to his [PSP] during the 

marriage[.]” Zouzias explained her difficulties in deducing as much: 

“I cannot know where—if that initial [$50,000] investment was [nonmarital]

money or [marital] money. I simply cannot know that. 

 *** 

And then in 2009, 2010, 2012, when additional monies went into [the FAM 

account], again, I don’t know—I can’t determine—it’s not determinable which money 

went where.”

Carol asked Zouzias whether anyone would be able to make such a determination. Zouzias 

responded, “You cannot.” Zouzias explained: 

“Because the monies that were contributed post-marriage were not segregated, they 

were combined with [the PSP] and then combined again with [the TIAA IRA]. 

Some monies went into [the FAM account], more monies came from the combined 

[TIAA IRA] into [the FAM account], so any attempt to identify specifically is a guess.” 

¶ 25 5. The Old Second IRA 

¶ 26 As described above, Zouzias was aware that the Allmerica IRA was later “moved to the

[second] Fifth Third IRA account, which was then moved to [the Downers Grove IRA], then 

moved again, then moved again, and ultimately a portion of that ended up in Old Second National.” 

Specifically, after the balance of the Allmerica IRA was rolled over to the second Fifth Third IRA, 

approximately $669,485 from that account and the money contained within the Nationwide IRA 

were all transferred to the Downers Grove IRA. In 2009, Gary moved $240,000 from the Downers 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 9 - 

Grove IRA to open the Old Second IRA. On cross-examination, Zouzias agreed that “no additional 

contributions were made to the [Old Second IRA] at anytime.” The only additions to the account’s 

balance came from “earnings within that IRA.” Those distributions were never transferred into 

another retirement asset. 

¶ 27 6. Zouzias’s Conclusions 

¶ 28 Despite her tracking of Gary’s accounts, Zouzias testified that she was not able to “trace 

the current assets back to the originating assets pre-marriage,” because “the money moved multiple 

times between accounts, from one account to another.” 

¶ 29 Carol asked Zouzias, “Based on your investigation and analysis, what are the conclusions 

that you reached considering what you’re asked to opine on?” Zouzias responded: 

“I was asked to quantify the ending balances of [the retirement accounts] *** as 

well as attempt to trace the pre-marriage monies to the existing assets.

I tried and I found it impossible to trace from that $80,0001 that was initially 

invested and determine which asset is being held as a result of that $80,000. 

The monies were combined multiple times in different plans, in different accounts. 

Those assets were sold within [the FAM account], reinvested, sold again[,] and are an 

existing asset.

So[,] as I sit here today, I cannot tell you that I can trace the combined post-marriage 

contributions from those to existing balances. So[,] I cannot decipher, cannot trace those 

assets.” 

1 Zouzias seems to be referring to $80,500 of marital monies deposited into the PSP in 

between 2001 and 2003. 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 10 - 

¶ 30 B. Lee Gould’s Testimony

¶ 31 Lee Gould testified that Gary hired him “to be his expert in this case,” and that he “was 

asked to review, analyze, and make a determination as to the funding sources of certain retirement 

assets held in his name.” As part of these duties, Gould also prepared a report outlining his findings.

¶ 32 Gould described his methodology for “forensic accounting and tracing,” testifying that he 

first sought to “[understand] the nature of the accounts—account or accounts that [he was] trying 

to *** trace.” He explained that he would talk to litigants, financial advisors, or whoever had “the 

most knowledge about the activity against which [he performs his] procedures,” “request 

documents,” and “draw some analyses or some preliminary opinions” before “drawing a 

conclusion ultimately.” In analyzing Gary’s retirement accounts, Gould mainly worked with 

Gary’s accountant, Jeffrey Krol, and obtained “canceled checks, account analyses, notes, account 

statements, quarterly account statements, [and] some IRS documentation showing withdrawals 

from one retirement asset into a deposit into another.” 

¶ 33 Many of Gould’s findings mirrored those of Zouzias. For instance, like Zouzias, Gould 

found that Gary held four different retirement assets as of the date of the parties’ marriage: the 

PSP, the TIAA IRA, the Allmerica IRA, and the FTB IRA. Both experts also agreed that in 

between 2001 and 2003, Gary deposited a total of $80,500 into his PSP2

, but that by 2008, the 

majority of the PSP was “transferred out” to the TIAA IRA and FAM account. Both experts also 

testified that the $80,500 eventually appreciated to approximately $96,000. The experts typically

2 While Gould explicitly acknowledged these marital contributions, he later agreed with 

Gary that he found “no new money *** was placed in any of [Gary’s] accounts other than a rollover 

during the course of the marriage.” 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 11 - 

agreed as to the amounts and dates of the various transfers and deposits between Gary’s retirement 

accounts.

¶ 34 However, the experts’ conclusions as to the possible existence of any marital monies within

Gary’s Old Second IRA, the FAM account, and the TIAA IRA differed significantly. 

¶ 35 1. The Old Second IRA 

¶ 36 Zouzias and Gould were both able to trace the inception of the Old Second IRA back to 

funds originally held within the Allmerica IRA, but the experts disagreed as to whether the 

Allmerica IRA itself contained marital funds. Again, Zouzias testified that $321,802 was held in 

the Allmerica account as of 2005, but that she was not provided with any documents necessary to 

determine the balance of the account as of the date of the parties’ marriage. On the other hand, 

Gould’s report specified that $321,802 existed in the account as of the parties’ marriage in 

December 2000, suggesting that the entirety of these funds were nonmarital. While testifying, he 

acknowledged that, based upon a statement giving the account’s balance of $276,069.14 as of 

December 31, 1998, “[he] now know[s] that the balance at or around the date of marriage was 

slightly less than [$321,802].” Gould only attached a few documents specifically regarding the 

Allmerica account’s balance to his report. One, the 2005 tax document that Zouzias had mentioned,

listed the value of that account as $321,802. The other document was contained in a supplement 

to his report, which indicated that as of December 31, 2000, the Allmerica IRA contained 

$200,000—a figure that was “based on the copies of the cancelled rollover checks dated April 4, 

1997 from Batavia Savings Bank and April 5, 1997 from Pinnacle Bank.”3 Gould suggested that 

3

 Furthermore, a second document attached to the supplement technically gave an account 

balance of the Allmerica IRA as being $321,802 as of the date of the parties’ marriage. However, 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 12 - 

this $200,000 was used to initially fund the Allmerica IRA. 

¶ 37 According to Gould, Gary’s Exhibit 33 “provide[d] *** [him with] information in regards 

to the history of [Gary’s] [Allmerica IRA].” Exhibit 33 consisted of the rolled over checks that 

Gould had previously described, various applications dated from 1997, beneficiary forms, 

correspondence, transfer forms, and other miscellaneous items. No account statements were 

included in Exhibit 33, and none of the documents provided a balance for the Allmerica IRA as of 

December 2000. After reviewing these documents, Gould “found no such indications” that any 

contributions were made to the Allmerica IRA during the parties’ marriage. 

¶ 38 Because Gould therefore found the Allmerica IRA to be devoid of marital money, he 

agreed with Gary that “the moneys that were in the [Downers Grove IRA] *** were from premarriage moneys,” leading him to opine that “100 percent” of the Old Second IRA was “premarriage moneys.” Gould opined that Zouzias erroneously concluded that the composition of the 

Allmerica IRA was unclear, testifying that “Ms. Zouzias also in her report claims that the 

[Allmerica] account because there was no documentation there for it, it has to be deemed after the 

date of marriage. We now have that information, so that aspect of her report would be in error.” 

¶ 39 2. The FAM Account 

¶ 40 While Zouzias was unable to identify how much of the FAM account’s subscriptions “came 

from the initial $80,500 dollars of contribution to his [PSP] during the marriage,” Gould concluded 

that $50,000 of these marital contributions were used to purchase the SC Egerkingen asset, while 

the remaining $35,500 appreciated to $46,000: 

“[B]ased on the dollars in after the date of marriage, which was $80,500, my report 

this document was intended to explain the reasoning behind Gould’s first estimate. 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 13 - 

assumes that $50,000 went into the Egerkingen[,] which would have left $30,500 if I’m 

doing my math correctly, which grew from 2001, 2002, and 2003 to approximately 45--

$46,000.” 

Based on this assumption, Gould agreed that his “position [was] that [the FAM account] was 

started with marital moneys.” Gould testified that “based on [these] calculations [he] performed 

and the assumptions [he] utilized, 77 percent [of the FAM account] *** [was] contributed post the 

date of marriage.” 

¶ 41 On cross-examination, Gould was asked about the $50,000 transfer that was deposited into 

the FAM account from Gary’s TIAA IRA in 2009. Specifically, Carol asked, “Could that $50,000 

be comprised of $46,000 that came from his [PSP] and gone into the [FAM account]?” Gould 

responded, “I don’t know the answer to that because when you take funds and deposit [them] into 

an account of other funds, cash is fungible, I can’t tell you which dollar bills got moved over. I 

don’t know how to answer it any better than that.” Gould provided the same answer when asked 

about the other $50,000 transfer between the TIAA IRA and FAM account that took place in 2012. 

He went on to explain that “when you take dollars and deposit, dollars in 2001, 2002[,] and 2003 

with a substantial sum of dollars that were there prior to that date, I can’t tell you which dollars 

were exactly transferred.” 

¶ 42 3. The TIAA IRA 

¶ 43 Gould disputed Zouzias’s conclusions regarding the classification of the TIAA IRA. While 

Zouzias found that it was impossible to proportion the nonmarital and marital funds contained 

within the TIAA IRA because the monies had “been combined and blended” at least twice, Gould

disagreed with her assessment “that the mere transfer of funds from the [PSP] into the [TIAA IRA] 

changed the identity of that account.” When asked whether Zouzias’s conclusions would 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 14 - 

essentially “amount to the $80,500 of new money that was contributed during the marriage 

changing the entirety of the $1.9 million into what would be deemed after marital funds,” Gould 

responded, “That’s the conclusion that she would [ask] to be drawn based on my interpretation of 

her report that the entirety of the retirement—all of the retirement accounts that exist today should 

be considered, in her words, [marital] contributions.” 

¶ 44 Gould agreed with Gary that after the SC Egerkingen asset was assumably purchased with 

$50,000 of the $96,000 of marital assets in the PSP, the remaining $46,000 “went into the [TIAA 

IRA].” He consequently found that that “96 percent of the funds in [the TIAA IRA] were attributed 

to contributions prior to the date of marriage, and 4 percent were attributable to funds contributed 

after the date of marriage.” Gould testified that he used a “rate of return” analysis and “a tracing 

analysis that [Krol’s] office had done” in reaching his various conclusions. 

¶ 45 On cross-examination, Carol asked Gould why he made the assumptions regarding his 

described apportionment of the $96,000. Gould responded, “I made that assumption because *** 

the return on the [TIAA IRA] was at a much lower rate than they were in the [FAM account], so I 

was trying to allocate the dollars that were deposited into the [PSP] in a position or a light most 

favorable to [Carol].” When asked how Gould knew the entire $96,000 was not instead transferred 

into the TIAA IRA, Gould responded, “Specifically do I have the dollar bill that said it was 

transferred there? I do not. Because when the moneys were deposited into the [PSP] they all looked 

alike[,] including all the significant dollars that were there prior to.” 

¶ 46 C. Jeffrey Krol’s Testimony

¶ 47 Jeffrey Krol testified that he had known Gary since 1980, once he began preparing Gary’s 

tax documents “for his corporate and individual affairs.” Since then, Krol began consulting Gary 

in different areas, including “investment planning, retirement planning, insurance planning, [and] 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 15 - 

estate planning.” 

¶ 48 On cross-examination, Krol testified about a purported summary of Gary’s assets as of 

December 15, 2000. The document listed Gary’s interest in the Allmerica IRA as totaling 

$321,801.68 as of that date. Kroll recognized that he obtained this figure from an attached “2005 

tax form.” Carol asked whether he had “any other information, other than [that] one tax statement 

to know how much was in [that] IRA as of [Gary’s] date of marriage to Carol.” Krol responded, 

“Not at the time we didn’t.” Krol acknowledged later having received additional documents from 

1998 giving a different value for the Allmerica IRA. However, Krol agreed that he didn’t “know 

how much was in the [Allmerica IRA] between 1998 and 2005” and that he wasn’t aware of any 

“deposits or withdrawals made by [Gary] into that account—or out of that account” between those 

dates.

¶ 49 D. The Trial Court’s Decision 

¶ 50 On December 20, 2018, the court issued its written judgment for dissolution of marriage

(Judgment). The court attached a written letter opinion to the Judgment, in which the court resolved 

the outstanding issues between the parties, including the classification of assets. The court found 

that the TIAA IRA, FAM Account, and Old Second IRA were all marital property: 

“During the marriage, testimony reveals that Gary added an additional [$80,500] to the 

[PSP] at the time the [PSP] was terminated, both [p]arties agree that the $80,500 had grown 

to $96,000.00. The $80,500.00, which was marital, lost its identity and was transmuted into 

Gary’s [nonmarital] estate upon its deposit and was a part of the [nonmarital] estate subject 

to being reimbursed to the marital estate pursuant to 750 ILCS [503(C)(2)]. *** During the 

marriage[,] Gary made transfers into [the TIAA IRA] from other of his assets. He argues 

that all of the monies deposited in that account were from traceable [nonmarital] sources 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 16 - 

and therefore retained a [nonmarital] character. Gary transferred money into the [TIAA 

IRA] from the [PSP]. A portion of that transfer was some of the $96,000 that was marital 

funds. Gary’s experts claim to be able to trace with specificity how much of the $96,000.00 

was deposited in the [TIAA IRA]. In their opinion, it was $46,000.00. The Court does not 

agree that the marital portion of the funds deposited in the [TIAA IRA] was clearly 

traceable. *** Gary’s own expert, [Gould], testified that cash is fungible. There is no way 

to ascertain with certainty what part of the $96,000 went to the [TIAA IRA] and what went 

to the other accounts.” 

¶ 51 The court noted that it found Zouzias to be more credible than Gould and agreed with her 

opinion that “because of the multitude of transfers into and out of [the TIAA IRA,] it was 

impossible to tell where the marital $96,000 was.” The court noted that Gary similarly failed to 

adequately trace any marital portions of the FAM account and the Old Second IRA. On January 

18, 2019, Gary filed his motion to reconsider. On March 21, 2019, the court denied Gary’s motion. 

Gary timely appealed.

¶ 52 We first addressed the parties’ appeal in In re Marriage of Taylor, No. 2-19-0315 (2021) 

(unpublished summary order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23(c)) and dismissed the appeal 

for a lack of jurisdiction pursuant to In re Marriage of Knoerr, 377 Ill. App. 3d. 1042, 1049-50 

(2007) (holding appellate court lacked jurisdiction where notice of appeal was filed while a petition 

for rule to show cause was pending in the trial court). The parties have since demonstrated the 

finality of the Judgment, and, accordingly, we turn to the merits of the appeal.

¶ 53 II. ANALYSIS

¶ 54 On appeal, Gary argues that the trial court improperly determined that the Old Second 

IRA, the FAM Account, and the TIAA IRA were marital in nature. Alternatively, if we find that 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 17 - 

these retirement accounts were properly classified as part of the parties’ marital estate, Gary argues 

that we should “enter an order awarding Gary’s [nonmarital] estate reimbursement for the 

substantial contribution it made to said marital property.” We address these arguments in turn. 

¶ 55 “Before a court may distribute property upon the dissolution of a marriage, the court must 

first classify the property as either marital or nonmarital.” In re Marriage of Romano, 2012 IL App 

(2d) 091339, ¶ 44. The trial court’s classification of property will not be disturbed upon appeal 

unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Id. A decision is against the manifest 

weight of the evidence where the “opposite conclusion is clearly evident or the finding is arbitrary, 

unreasonable, or not based on the evidence.” Id. Here, we find that the trial court’s marital 

classifications of the Old Second IRA, the FAM account, and the TIAA IRA were not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 56 A. The Old Second IRA 

¶ 57 First, because Gary failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the Old Second 

IRA was acquired solely with premarital money, we find that the trial court properly characterized 

this account as being part of the parties’ marital estate. Pursuant to the Illinois Marriage and 

Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2018)), property acquired 

after the parties’ marriage but before the judgment of dissolution is generally presumed to be 

marital. 750 ILCS 5/503 (West 2018). The Act includes several exceptions to this general 

presumption, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. In re Marriage of Dann, 

2012 IL App (2d) 100343, ¶ 63. One of these exceptions includes “property acquired in exchange 

for property acquired before the marriage.” 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(2). “The party claiming that 

property is nonmarital has the burden of proof, and any doubts are resolved in favor of finding that 

the property is marital.” In re Marriage of Johns, 311 Ill. App. 3d 699, 703 (2000). 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 18 - 

¶ 58 Here, seemingly relying on section 503(a)(2), Gary argues that the Old Second IRA was 

nonmarital because it was funded entirely through other nonmarital retirement accounts that were 

opened prior to the parties’ marriage and funded with nonmarital assets. However, he failed to 

show as much by clear and convincing evidence. The parties agree that the Old Second IRA was 

created after the parties’ marriage. The parties also seemingly agree that the Old Second IRA was 

funded with $240,000 from Gary’s Downers Grove IRA, which itself was funded through the 

Nationwide IRA and Gary’s second Fifth Third IRA.

4 The second Fifth Third IRA received its 

initial funds from Gary’s Allmerica IRA. Therefore, to show that the Old Second IRA came from 

purely nonmarital sources, Gary necessarily needed to prove that the Allmerica IRA did not 

contain marital money. 

¶ 59 Gould testified that the Allmerica IRA contained no marital money. He initially found that 

the Allmerica IRA contained $321,802 as of the date of the parties’ marriage, based on a 2005 tax 

form, giving the account’s balance as of that year. The supplement to his report indicated that, as 

of December 31, 2000, the Allmerica IRA contained $200,000, a new figure that was now based 

on the 1997 checks from Batavia Savings Bank and Pinnacle Bank. Then, he eventually testified 

that as of the parties’ marriage, the IRA contained “slightly less” than his initial $321,802 

valuation, based on a 1998 statement giving the account balance as $276,069.14. After examining 

4 Gary’s briefs seem to indicate that that he had only one Fifth Third Bank IRA, which was 

“liquidated” in 2002 before receiving funds from the Allmerica IRA in 2005. On the other hand, 

Carol suggests the 2005 transfer from the Allmerica IRA created a new, second Fifth Third Bank 

IRA. We adopt Carol’s view, as it is supported by record. Nonetheless, the distinction is immaterial 

to our analysis. 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 19 - 

all these documents, Gould “found no such indications” that any marital contributions were made 

to the account, which lead him to opine that “100 percent” of the Old Second IRA was “premarriage moneys.” 

¶ 60 Regardless, the trial court’s decision to disregard Gould’s testimony in favor of Zouzias’s 

conflicting stance was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. “The trial court is free to 

accept one expert's testimony over another; experts' comparative credibilities and the weight to be 

accorded their respective testimony are matters for the trier of fact to determine.” People v. Hill, 

297 Ill. App. 3d 500, 517-18 (1998). Portions of Gould’s findings were patently nonsensical. For 

instance, neither the 1997 checks, the 1998 statement, the 2005 tax document, nor any of the other 

Allmerica IRA documents in the record could have possibly provided Gould with the Allmerica 

IRA’s December 2000 balance, especially given how volatile the account was. Regardless, Gould 

confidently provided three different figures for the account’s balance as of the parties’ marriage, 

and each figure was equally unsupported by the record. 

¶ 61 Likewise, Gould’s determination that the Allmerica IRA contained no marital money was 

also unsupported by any evidence contained within the record. Essentially, Gould determined that 

no marital contributions were made to the Allmerica IRA between the years 2000 and 2005, when 

the account’s funds were rolled over into the second Fifth Third IRA. However, Gould only 

reviewed one document originating from this time period, the 2005 tax document. Unlike some of 

the 1998 account statements included in the record, the 2005 tax form did not contain any 

information regarding the account’s activity or history. The 2005 statement was therefore wholly 

irrelevant in determining whether any contributions were made to the account after the parties’ 

marriage, especially considering that it is impossible to compare the 2005 balance to the account’s

2000 balance, which remains unknown. 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 20 - 

¶ 62 On the other hand, Zouzias reasonably concluded that there was insufficient documentation 

to possibly conclude whether any marital contributions were made to the Allmerica IRA. While 

Gary repeatedly points out that no documentation proved otherwise, it was not Carol’s burden to 

disprove the marital characterization of the account. Instead, Gary had the burden of showing by 

clear and convincing evidence that the account “was acquired in exchange for property acquired 

before the marriage.” 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(1)(B); Dann, 2012 IL App (2d) at ¶ 63. Because Gary 

presented no evidence to establish that the Allmerica IRA was entirely nonmarital, the trial court 

correctly ascertained that the Old Second IRA, which came to include the Allmerica IRA’s funds, 

was marital property.

¶ 63 B. The FAM Account 

¶ 64 Next, because Gary commingled marital and nonmarital monies within the PSP prior to 

acquiring the SC Egerkingen subscription and the FAM account, the trial court’s classification of 

the FAM account as marital property was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. “If 

marital and [nonmarital] property are commingled into newly acquired property resulting in a loss 

of identity of the contributing estates, the commingled property shall be deemed transmuted to 

marital property.” 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(1)(B) (West 2018). 

¶ 65 For example, in In re Marriage of Davis, the respondent had a cash management account

that had been created after the parties were married, in which he deposited inherited, nonmarital

securities. 215 Ill. App. 3d 763, 767 (1991). Aside from the nonmarital securities that were used 

to open the account, the respondent subsequently deposited over $340,000 of marital funds into

the account to earn higher interest “until he needed to withdraw those funds to pay expenses.” Id.

at 769. These deposits were not held in cash, but instead, were used to acquire other securities in 

a money market fund that was contained within the account. Id. These securities would then be 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 21 - 

“sold to release funds to cover checks written against the account when the temporary cash 

holdings were insufficient.” Id.

¶ 66 After the marriage was dissolved and the cash management account was classified as 

marital property, the respondent appealed. Id. at 768. Because the cash management account had 

originally been opened solely with inherited assets, the respondent argued that the trial court’s 

determinations ran contrary to section 503(a)(1) of the Act, which specified that inherited assets 

are generally nonmarital. Id. While the respondent acknowledged marital contributions were made 

to the account in addition to these otherwise nonmarital assets, he argued that section 503(c)(1) of 

the Act specified that the marital contributions were transmuted into nonmarital assets. Id. 

¶ 67 The trial court agreed that inherited assets—as well as acquisitions made solely with 

inherited assets—typically qualify as nonmarital property. Id. The court also agreed that if the 

inherited assets remained stagnant within the respondent’s account and were separated from the 

parties’ marital funds, the account would have maintained its nonmarital nature. Id. However, after 

examining “the structure and operation” of the cash management account, the court found that 

when the account’s deposits were used to acquire the “other stock, bonds, or shares,” “newly 

created assets came into being.” Id. at 769. Finding that it was also impossible to distinguish which 

securities were specifically purchased from the marital contributions versus the inherited 

securities, the court went on to explain that under the Act, “[o]nce marital and nonmarital funds 

are commingled and lose their identity through acquisition of a newly created asset during the 

marriage, the asset is marital.” Id. Since the newly acquired securities could not be differentiated 

from those purchased with nonmarital funds, the entire account containing all of the securities was 

deemed marital property. See id. at 770. 

¶ 68 We find that Davis is analogous to the instant action. Just as the respondent in Davis 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 22 - 

commingled marital and nonmarital funds in his cash management account, here, the record 

indicates that Gary commingled marital and nonmarital funds in his PSP. While the commingled 

monies in Davis were used to acquire new assets in the forms of “other stock, bonds, or shares,” 

here, the PSP’s commingled funds were used to acquire the SC Egerkingen subscription, the entire 

FAM account, and all of the FAM account’s subsequent real estate investments. Therefore, while 

section 503(c)(1)(B) led the Davis court to find that the newly acquired securities were marital, 

here, the statute similarly leads us to conclude that the assets acquired from the PSP, namely, the 

SC Egerkingen subscription and the FAM account, were also marital. 

¶ 69 Gary contends that the marital and nonmarital monies contained within the PSP never lost 

their identity, and thus, section 503(c)(1)(B) is inapplicable. His argument is unsupported by the 

record. Both parties agreed that the PSP’s funds—which contained marital and nonmarital 

monies—were used to acquire the SC Egerkingen real estate asset. However, Gould went further,

opining that this asset was acquired specifically from $50,000 of the $80,500 of marital 

contributions made to the PSP between 2001 and 2003, and not with any commingled funds. Based 

on this conclusion, Gould claimed that he was able to determine how the marital contributions to 

the PSP were used, suggesting that they remained segregated and never lost their identity. 

¶ 70 However, his unsupported conclusion defies logic. Gould acknowledged that his proposed 

apportionment of the marital funds was an “assumption.” He explained that he made this 

“assumption” because “the return on the [TIAA IRA] was at a much lower rate than *** in the 

[FAM account,]” leading him “to allocate the dollars that were deposited into the [PSP] in a 

position or a light most favorable to [Carol].” However, Gould’s ideas of fairness and equity are 

irrelevant. Any conclusions based on his self-admitted assumption should be given no weight, as 

an expert’s opinion “cannot be based on mere conjecture and guess.” Dyback v. Weber, 114 Ill. 2d 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 23 - 

232, 244 (1986). 

¶ 71 Additionally, Gould contradicted his own assumptions by acknowledging that the marital 

funds deposited in the PSP were fungible. Specifically, he testified that “when you take funds and 

deposit [them] into an account of other funds, cash is fungible, I can’t tell you which dollar bills 

got moved over. I don’t know how to answer it any better than that.” He went on to explain, “when 

you take dollars and deposit, dollars in 2001, 2002[,] and 2003 with a substantial sum of dollars 

that were [in the PSP] prior to that date, I can’t tell you which dollars were exactly transferred.” 

Therefore, Gould admitted that he was unable to trace the different funds that were deposited into 

the PSP. This admission supports the trial court’s determination that the marital and nonmarital

funds within the PSP lost their identity. No competent evidence in the record rebuts this 

conclusion. 

¶ 72 Gary also argues that section 503(c)(1)(A) of the Act specifies that the $80,500 of marital 

contributions was transmuted to nonmarital property once it was deposited into the PSP, 

presumably before the contributions appreciated to $96,000. According to section 503(c)(1)(A), 

once marital and nonmarital property are “commingled by one estate being contributed into the 

other,” “[i]f the contributed property loses its identity, the contributed property transmutes to the 

estate receiving the property.” 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(1)(A) (West 2018). Relying on this language, 

Gary postulates that the $80,500 of marital money that was initially deposited into the PSP

transmuted into Gary’s nonmarital estate, because the PSP was created prior to the parties’ 

marriage and was therefore nonmarital. Under this logic, Gary again argues that the FAM account, 

which was funded from the PSP, was acquired solely through nonmarital funds. 

¶ 73 This argument is almost identical to the respondent’s argument in Davis. However, like the 

respondent in Davis, Gary ignores the “the structure and operation” of his accounts. Specifically, 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 24 - 

Gary disregards all the new assets that were acquired from the PSP’s commingled funds, including

the SC Egerkingen subscription, the FAM account, and its underlying real estate investments. 

Again, these newly acquired assets mandate the application of section 503(c)(1)(B), which in turn 

verifies the FAM account’s marital classification. 

¶ 74 Regardless of section 503(c)(1)(B), Gary’s commingling of marital and nonmarital funds 

within the PSP and FAM account evince an intent to treat those accounts as part of the marital 

estate. In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, ¶ 72. For all of these reasons, Gary was 

unable to show that the FAM account was acquired solely through nonmarital sources, and the 

trial court’s conclusion regarding the marital nature of the FAM account was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 75 C. The TIAA IRA

¶ 76 Finally, the trial court’s determination that the TIAA IRA was a part of the parties’ marital 

estate was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. Similar to his arguments regarding the 

Old Second IRA and the FAM account, Gary repeatedly argues that the balance of the TIAA IRA 

could be traced exclusively to nonmarital funds obtained from other retirement accounts that were 

funded prior to the parties’ marriage. Therefore, Gary implicitly suggests that the account was 

nonmarital property under section 503(a)(2). In support of this argument, Gary concedes that the 

PSP—which contained marital money—was ultimately deposited into the TIAA IRA. However, 

once again, he claims that under section 503(c)(1)(A), the $85,000 of marital contributions that

was deposited in the PSP between 2001 and 2003 transmuted to nonmarital property. Therefore, 

Gary maintains that the account was derived exclusively from nonmarital sources. This argument 

is unavailing. As we have already noted, the Downers Grove IRA and Countryside IRA—both of 

which partially funded the TIAA IRA—could be traced back to money contained within the 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 25 - 

Allmerica IRA. As we have found above, the Allmerica IRA was also marital in nature. 

Consequently, Gary is unable to show that the TIAA IRA contained solely premarital funds. 

¶ 77 Furthermore, section 503(b)(2) of the Act reinforces our conclusion. Pursuant to that 

section of the Act:

“For purposes of distribution of property pursuant to this Section, all pension benefits 

(including pension benefits under the Illinois Pension Code, defined benefit plans, defined 

contribution plans and accounts, individual retirement accounts, and non-qualified plans) 

acquired by or participated in by either spouse after the marriage and before a judgment 

of dissolution of marriage or legal separation or declaration of invalidity of the marriage 

are presumed to be marital property. A spouse may overcome the presumption that these 

pension benefits are marital property by showing through clear and convincing evidence 

that the pension benefits were acquired by a method listed in subsection (a) of this Section” 

(Emphasis added.) 

750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2018). 

In explaining what shall be “known as ‘[nonmarital] property,’ ” subsection (a) describes “property 

acquired before the marriage, except as it relates to retirement plans that may have both marital 

and [nonmarital] characteristics.” (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(6) (West 2018). 

¶ 78 Here, given all of the transactions involving the TIAA IRA that were completed by Gary 

after the parties’ marriage, Gary undoubtedly participated in the TIAA IRA after the parties 

became married. While Gary has argued that the TIAA IRA was devoid of marital funds, again, 

the account contained funds from the Allmerica IRA, which we’ve already found to be marital. 

Therefore, the TIAA IRA has marital and nonmarital characteristics, meaning that it does not 

qualify as nonmarital property under 503(a)(6). Again, Gary has also not shown that the exception 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 26 - 

under 503(a)(2) applies either. He has not otherwise shown another exception under subsection (a) 

to rebut the presumption that the TIAA IRA was marital. 

¶ 79 Gary has not argued that, by virtue of section 503(c)(1)(A), any PSP funds that were 

transferred to the previously nonmarital TIAA IRA transmuted to nonmarital property upon its

deposit. Instead, he has only argued that the $80,500 of marital contributions were transmuted into 

marital property once they were deposited into the PSP. Therefore, the former contention is 

forfeited. Ill. S. Ct. R. 341(h)(7) (eff. Oct 1, 2020). However, even if the argument was not 

forfeited, 503(a)(6) casts doubt on section 503(c)(1)(A)’s applicability. Again, section

503(c)(1)(A) states that, once marital and nonmarital property are “commingled by one estate 

being contributed into the other,” “[i]f the contributed property loses its identity, the contributed 

property transmutes to the estate receiving the property.” (Emphasis added.) 750 ILCS 

5/503(c)(1)(A). Therefore, in order to show that any PSP funds transmuted to Gary’s nonmarital 

estate upon transfer to the TIAA IRA, Gary would first need to confirm that the TIAA IRA was

otherwise nonmarital. However, as we’ve found above, 503(a)(6) suggests that the account’s 

premarital creation does not in and of itself conclusively establish that it was nonmarital property, 

because it had both marital and nonmarital characteristics. For these reasons, we find that the trial 

court’s determination that the TIAA IRA was part of the parties’ marital estate was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 80 D. Restitution 

¶ 81 In the event that we affirm the trial court’s allocations of the retirement accounts, Gary 

alternatively asks that we order his nonmarital estate to be reimbursed for the “substantial 

contribution” it made to the parties’ marital estate. In support of his request, Gary cites 750 ILCS 

5/503(c)(2) (West 2018), which reads, “When one estate of property makes a contribution to 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 27 - 

another estate of property, the contributing estate shall be reimbursed from the estate receiving the 

contribution notwithstanding any transmutation. No such reimbursement shall be made with 

respect to a contribution that is not traceable by clear and convincing evidence or that was a gift.

(Emphasis added.) 

¶ 82 Here, Gary has failed to clearly or convincingly trace any of the nonmarital contributions 

purportedly made to the parties’ marital estate. First, Gary has failed to provide any documentation 

or proof necessary to deduce the Allmerica IRA’s marital and nonmarital composition. Because 

the Allmerica IRA’s ambiguous funds eventually made their way to Gary’s Old Second IRA and 

TIAA IRA, it is impossible to tell what amount of nonmarital funds—if any—were contained in 

those accounts. Indeed, Gary has not provided us with any proposed figures or calculations 

suggesting the amount of any nonmarital contributions made to either account. Instead, he devoted 

almost the entirety of his briefs arguing that these accounts were funded solely through premarital 

money. Because Gary has therefore failed to clearly trace and identify the contributions that may 

have been made to that account, he is not entitled to any restitution stemming from the Old Second 

IRA. 

¶ 83 Similarly, Gary has failed to provide us with any clear or convincing accounting of any 

nonmarital contributions that were made to the FAM account. Again, all of the arguments that he 

dedicated to the FAM account claimed that the account was composed solely of nonmarital funds. 

Regardless, any attempt to calculate his entitled reimbursement would be in vain. As we have 

noted above, both experts were unable to convincingly theorize what happened to the $96,000 of 

appreciated marital contributions contained within the PSP. The PSP’s commingled funds were 

subsequently used to acquire the SC Egerkingen subscription and to start the FAM account, which 

contained numerous other real estate subscriptions—each with differing rates of returns, as 
2021 IL App (2d) 190315-U 

- 28 - 

acknowledged by both parties’ experts. Other PSP money eventually made its way into Gary’s 

TIAA IRA, which also provided a rate of return distinct from the other accounts receiving 

commingled funds. Because the portions of the nonmarital contributions making their way into 

these various assets therefore remains unknown, it is impossible to calculate what contributions, if 

any, that Gary is entitled to. 

¶ 84 III. CONCLUSION

¶ 85 For the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County. 

¶ 86 Affirmed.