While a trial court must consider all relevant factors before exercising its discretion in distributing marital property, it need not make specific findings as to each of the factors set forth in subsection (d) of this section. In re Benz
The trial court was not required to make specific findings as to the reasons for its award where the evidence presented at the hearings justified the award and provided an adequate basis for the appellate court to review the property division. In re Caldwell
This section requires that the trial court consider the value of the property set apart to each spouse; while it need not make specific findings of fact as to the value of each item in dispute, there must be before the court proper evidence of the value of the marital property. In re Petramale.
Findings regarding factors the court considered under this section are not required unless there is not a valid separation agreement. In re Miller
See Also: Womens Divorce Lawyers
The bankruptcy court’s refusal to order depositions of the debtor’s former husband’s siblings regarding a post-divorce gift to the debtor’s husband, pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/503(d), was harmless error because the debtor could have obtained equivalent information through other discover means. Mungo v. Taylor
Where petitioner testified that she made no promises in exchange for the purchase of residence, since the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony was a question of fact for the trial court or jury, it was within the province of the trial court to accept the petitioner’s version of the events and conclude that no promises were made to the respondent in exchange for the parties’ decision to purchase the home in joint tenancy, and the presumption that a gift was intended was not overcome by clear, convincing and unmistakable evidence. In re Wingader
In General
This section and 750 ILCS 5/513 do not mandate that divorced parents must provide their children of majority age with funds for education in cases; however, it is certainly a legitimate legislative purpose for the legislature to furnish a means for providing that they do so after they have been divorced. Kujawinski v. Kujawinski
College Expenses
Where testimony at hearing established that room and bored for daughter’s first year of college was $1,170, a trial court in the exercise of its equitable powers was entitled to impart an ambulatory character to its decree, and because defendant was already aware of that obligation for the first year of college and during the remainder of daughter’s college career, reference could be made to the room and board contract in effect for that particular year, and the trial court’s failure to specify a dollar amount for the daughter’s room and board while at college was not error. Flatley v. Flatley
There is little merit in a rule which requires as a matter of law expenditure by a child of divorced parents of his or her own funds in obtaining a college education; such a decision is better left to the wisdom and discretion of the trial court after due consideration of respective net worth, income, and other responsibilities of the parents and of the child. Flately v. Flatley
See Also: Womens Divorce Lawyers
The action of husband in living in home without paying rent could not be considered use of marital property for a purpose unrelated to the marriage at a time when the marriage was undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown. Makar v. Makar
Where the parties continued to engage in a sexual relationship until the finding for dissolution, the trial court’s finding that the marriage of the parties was not undergoing irreconcilable breakdown, for the purpose of identifying dissipation, prior to the filing for dissolution was not an abuse of discretion. In re Hazel
Whether a given course of conduct constitutes dissipation within the purview of subdivision (d)(1) of this section depends upon the facts of the particular case. In re Petrovich
A party can be found guilty of dissipation even though conduct occurred prior to separation or prior to the commencement of the dissolution proceedings. In re Rai
General and vague statements that the funds were spent on marital expenses or to pay bills are inadequate to avoid a finding of dissipation. In re Petrovich
Two of the factors the trial court is to consider in dividing marital property are the contribution, or dissipation of each party. In re O’Neill
In dividing marital assets, the trial court can consider the income and earning power of respective parties and the needs of the parties’ children. In re Sobo
To divide marital property in just proportions, a court is to consider all relevant factors, which include: the duration of the marriage, the value of the property set apart to each spouse, the marriage, the value of the property set apart to each spouse, the relevant economic circumstances of each spouse, the amounts and sources of each spouse’s income, the age, occupation vocational skills, employability, and needs of each party, whether the apportionment is in lieu of or in addition to maintenance, and the reasonable opportunity for each spouse for future acquisition of assets and income. In re Heller
Where the trial court considered the contribution of the parties, the value of the parties’ resources, the disparity of the parties’ earning potentials subsequent to dissolution, the relevant economic circumstances including the health and employability of each of the parties, and the fact that the distribution was in lieu of maintenance, although the court did not list these factors serially with a separate finding for each, the record indicated facts noted by the court which showed that the court considered all relevant factors under subsection (c) of this section. In re Fuggiti
The court must consider needs of each of parties in dividing the marital property and in awarding maintenance. In re De Batt
Value of non-marital assets is a factor to be considered in the division of marital property. In re Cuisance
Although long-term periodic maintenance would have been more appropriate and might be somewhat relevant to a judge’s decision, other factors must necessarily figure into an award of property pursuant to this section. In re Jenkins
A spouse’s contributions to the appreciation in value of the other spouse’s non-marital property is one of the factors to consider in the division of marital property. In re Pancner
Because this section permits the court to consider relevant economic circumstances in disposing of the property and determining whether there is sufficient property to provide for a spouse’s reasonable needs without awarding maintenance, it is thus contemplated that the court must make some approximation of the income available to a party in order to determine whether the marital home should be sold or maintenance should be awarded. In re Smith
In a proceeding for the disposition of property following a dissolution of marriage, the court is directed to award each spouse his own non-marital assets and to divide marital property without regard to marital misconduct in just proportions considering all relevant factors. In re Fleming
Value is only one factor to be considered by the court in disposing of the marital property. In re Sanborn
In determining whether the trial court abused its discretion in dividing property, the question is not whether the reviewing court agrees with the trial court but rather whether the trial court in the exercise of its discretion acted arbitrarily without the employment of conscientious judgment or, in view of all the circumstances, exceeded the bounds of reason and ignored recognized principles of law so that substantial injustice resulted. In re Lee
Sufficient evidence existed to find that wife’s just proportion of the marital estate was nearly one-half of the estate, even though husband had to support the five minor children, where husband retained possession of the marital residence, the 100 acre farm, the livestock, the farm equipment and the machinery, and taking into account his other assets, it was plain that he had sufficient resources to maintain a secure and productive style of life, while the resources to maintain a secure and productive style of life, while the wife had no marketable skills and was employed outside the home only once since she was married. In re Reed
The evidence showed respondent’s gross income was reflected in her 1979income tax return as approximately $16,000; respondent was employed as a legal secretary; petitioner’s gross income for 1979 was $41,870; the total amount of marital property involved was about $144,000; respondent received about 61 to 62% and petitioner about 38 to 39% plus the optometry business; the fact that the trial court awarded respondent more than half of the property did not make the division unfair; an equitable division the property did not make the division unfair; an equitable division of marital property is not necessarily an equal one. In re Greenberg
Apportionment of debts was held not to be an abuse of discretion. In re Nuechterlien
The trial court has discretion in choosing the method to apportion the present value of the marital property interest in retirement benefits. In re Mantei
See Also: Divorce Lawyers Los Angeles
