Court Opinion

ID: 9729524
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:41:06.104831+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:59.277803
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE WELCH, dissenting: I respectfully disagree with that part of the majority’s opinion which reverses the award of maintenance and attorney fees and remands the case for reconsideration of these awards. The appellate standard of review of dissolution of marriage and property distribution orders is abuse of discretion, and the question is not whether the reviewing court agrees with the trial court but, rather, did the trial court, in the exercise of its discretion, act arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or, in view of all the circumstances, exceed the bounds of reason and ignore recognized principles of law so that substantial injustice resulted? In re Marriage of Smith (1984), 128 Ill. App. 3d 1017,1024, 471 N.E.2d 1008,1015. The evidence in this case indicated that the only real marital property consisted of the parties’ residence located on 42 acres of farmland, which was stipulated to be worth $49,000. The court ordered the marital property sold with net proceeds to be divided equally between the parties. Prior to the sale of the house, husband was ordered to pay maintenance of $500 per month, and after the sale, $250 per month. Husband was also ordered to assume the entire marital debt of $28,700 and certain nonmarital debts relating to his inheritances. Finally, he was ordered to pay $1,000 of wife’s attorney fees. The husband was awarded his nonmarital property, 167 acres of inherited farmland, but the evidence showed husband took considerable business losses on this property which was leased, in both 1987 and 1988. Husband is 60 years old and suffers from a heart murmur and diabetes. He has been employed for the last five years as a correctional officer for the State of Illinois and earns $24,000 per year. The evidence showed that after husband pays his reasonable living expenses his net income will be $161 per month. It is apparent that husband will have to severely restrict his personal expenses or obtain additional employment in order to pay the $500 per month in maintenance the majority seems to believe he can afford to pay. The financial circumstances of both parties are grim; both are in poor health and, under the order of the court below, neither has income and/or assets sufficient to provide for his or her reasonable needs. In my opinion the majority placed too much emphasis on husband’s award of his nonmarital farming property in finding that the trial court abused its discretion by reducing the award of maintenance to $250 per month following sale of the house and by awarding only one-fourth of wife’s total attorney fees. I believe the maintenance and attorney fees awards are substantiated by the evidence herein, the result reached by the court below was fair and just to both parties, and accordingly the order of the circuit court of Fayette County did not constitute an abuse of discretion.