Court Opinion

ID: 9741636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:59:57.013345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.192572
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE CARMAN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part: I agree with the majority’s analysis on the property division. The majority, however, concludes that $5,500 per month in maintenance is sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of the petitioner in maintaining the standard of living established during the marriage. I disagree. In In re Marriage of Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d 768, 773, 690 N.E.2d 1023, 1026 (1998), this court considered “reasonable needs” and the higher standard of “lifestyle needs.” We noted that “ ‘the resources of the parties dictate whether they can maintain their life-style after dissolution.’ ” Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 690 N.E.2d at 1026, quoting Werries, 247 Ill. App. 3d at 652, 616 N.E.2d at 1390. We then observed that, in Tietz, this court harmonized the two concepts of reasonable needs and lifestyle by “stating that the ‘benchmark for determination of maintenance is the reasonable needs of the spouse seeking maintenance in view of the standard of living established during the marriage.’ ” (Emphasis in original.) Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 773, 690 N.E.2d at 1027, quoting Tietz, 238 Ill. App. 3d at 972, 605 N.E.2d at 676. Although the majority invokes this “benchmark,” I conclude it fails to give proper consideration to the parties’ predissolution standard of living and the disproportionate impact of the dissolution on petitioner’s lifestyle. In Dunlap, we concluded that if the petitioner’s income, including the ordered maintenance, is insufficient to meet her lifestyle needs and, if the respondent has the means to provide for her continuing her prior lifestyle without compromising his own needs, she is entitled to maintenance in an amount sufficient to support her predissolution lifestyle, unless other factors make such an award unreasonable. Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 774, 690 N.E.2d at 1027. The facts in Dunlap were quite similar to the present case. The Dunlaps had been married for 26 years. The wife had only minimal work experience outside the home. The undisputed facts revealed that , her standard of living had, on the whole, been diminished since the divorce and his had not suffered comparably. Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 773. 690 N.E.2d at 1026. The majority rejects petitioner’s reasoning that the amount needed to support her lifestyle may be calculated by taking one-half of the parties’ net monthly income. Yet, we employed precisely the same reasoning in Dunlap: “The parties’ marital lifestyle was supported by almost $100,000 per year in after-tax income. Using one-half of their 1995 net income as a ballpark estimate of [predissolution] lifestyle, each spouse requires $48,669, or $4,056 per month, to maintain a similar standard of living.” Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 774, 690 N.E.2d at 1027. We then compared his monthly income and expenses to hers and concluded that she suffered “a substantial lifestyle deficit.” Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 774, 690 N.E.2d at 1027. Because the respondent’s monthly excess of income over expenses would allow him to contribute to petitioner’s standard of living without impairing his own, we remanded to the trial court to give proper consideration to the standard of living during the marriage and to order maintenance accordingly. Dunlap, 294 Ill. App. 3d at 774, 690 N.E.2d at 1027. In the instant case, petitioner’s “ballpark” estimate of the cost of maintaining the predissolution lifestyle is $8,300 per person per month. In addition, certain expenses, such as country club membership, were paid by the corporation, which will presumably continue to support respondent ex-husband’s membership. Petitioner will have to pay for her own. The predissolution standard of living also included the ability to build assets, rather than to consume them. Petitioner’s income from employment is a small fraction of respondent’s and, as a result, she will have to use the interest from her investments to support herself. If petitioner wishes to live in her predissolution style, she will be required to invade capital. The respondent will be able to continue to reinvest his investment income so that his estate will continue to grow. In many cases, the resources of the parties are such that neither person can maintain the predissolution lifestyle after dissolution. In the instant case, however, the resources are available for both parties to continue to live very well. Given the disparity in income and the length of the marriage, as well as the considerable assets accumulated during the marriage, it is not necessary for petitioner to choose between a significant diminishment in lifestyle and invading capital. In my view, the amount of maintenance ordered, $5,500 per month, may be sufficient for her reasonable needs, but does not meet the standard set in Tietz and Dunlap.