Court Opinion

ID: 9739641
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:18:58.160803+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:13.271809
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TULLY, dissenting: I respectfully dissent from the majority. The conclusion that the majority reaches regarding the Northbrook home, declaring it to be marital property, is just plain wrong. Gail Didier, petitioner-appellee, in noncontradicted testimony stated that funds from Gail’s nonmarital condominium property were used to purchase the Northbrook home. The trial court’s finding that the Northbrook home is Gail’s nonmarital property is not an abuse of discretion, and the trial court’s conclusion is fair and reasonable and should be affirmed. Further, in this instance, the property was kept separate and apart from marital property and held in a land trust with Gail being the sole beneficial owner of the trust. Section 503(a)(2) indicates when property is acquired in exchange for property acquired before the marriage, the property is to be known or classified as nonmarital property. Eroperty acquired during marriage in exchange for nonmarital property is also considered nonmarital, especially if the new property is held in the acquiring spouse’s name alone. In re Marriage of Smith, 86 Ill. 2d 518 (1981); 750 ILCS 5/503(a)(2) (West 1998). I would find that there was clear and convincing evidence that this property has been held as nonmarital property, has been viewed and treated as nonmarital property, and that all expenses, including taxes, have been paid by the petitioner. As to the items of investments, such as the following accounts: ABN-AMRO, La Salle National Bank money market account, and La Salle National Bank checking account, totaling $491,746.00, I agree with the majority as to the classification of the investments that the majority finds as marital property due to failure of sufficient evidence. To differentiate this from the general concept of property acquired during the marriage as marital property would require a showing by testimony of the donor, her father, or some other evidence more than her bare statement. It appears that the trial court’s finding of Gail’s business investments as nonmarital property is against the manifest weight of the evidence. I concur with the majority. As to the issue of maintenance and child support, I agree with the majority.