Child support award was not an abuse of discretion because 750 ILCS 5/503(g) trust proceeds took care of the minor child’s other needs, and award was in excess of the amount indicated on custodial parent’s affidavit listing expenses for minor. In re Andrew.
Where a noncustodial parent has the ability to pay support in excess of the stated needs of the child, a court may order child support in excess of the needs of the child, a court may order child support in excess of the needs to enable the child to enjoy the standard of living he would have had if the marriage had not been dissolved. In re Rogliano.
Trial court was not required to make explicit findings when entering its order of support. In re Reyna.
Where the trial court refused to set aside the father’s nonmarital funds, pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/503(g), for the payment of child support during the father’s incarceration, the trial court’s decision did not have support under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(1), as 505(a)(1) did not limit what assets the trial court could reach to assure that a child support award was satisfied. Hari v. Hari.
Entry of preliminary injunction preventing the disinterment of defendants’ father on grounds that there was no strong and convincing evidence to show that there was a reason to disinter the body was upheld. Hough v. Weber.
The irreparable harm incurred would have been the removal of plaintiff’s outdoor advertising sign because the removal of the sign would cause plaintiff to lose income and sales. Gannett Outdoor of Chicago v. Baise.
The restraint imposed by an injunction should not be more extensive than is reasonably required to protect the interests of the party in whose favor it is granted, and should not be so broad as to prevent defendant from exercising his rights. People ex rel. Traiteur v. Abbott.
A preliminary injunction is improper where it appears from the record, that plaintiff failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. Rock Island Bank v. Paul.
There is a rebuttable presumption that a contribution of non-marital funds to a marital home held in joint tenancy constitutes a non-reimbursable gift. In re Mayzner
Husband’s $30,000 non-marital contribution to the parties’ condominium, which was held in joint tenancy, was presumed to be gift and since husband presented no evidence to rebut this presumption, he was not entitled to any reimbursement. In re Mayzner
Subdivision (c)(2) of this section does not mandate reimbursement for property which was gifted to the marital estate. In re Flemming
Burden of Proof
The burden of proof rests on those seeking to establish that a transaction was intended as a gift. Hofmann v. Hofmann
Commingling Property
Where non-marital funds are commingled with marital property or placed in joint tenancy, a commingled with marital property or placed in joint tenancy, a presumption of gift arise which can only be rebutted by clear, convincing, and unmistakable evidence that no gift was intended. In re Caldwell
Donative Intent
Donative intent was presumed because the transfer was from parent to child. In re Brown
Factors
Some of the factors considered significant to determining whether the presumption of a gift to the marital estate had been rebutted or shown to be unreasonable are (1) the size of the gift relative to the entire estate; (2) who paid the purchase price, made improvements, and paid taxes for the property with solely acquired funds and exercised control and management over the property; (4) when the asset was purchased; and (4) how the parties handled their prior financial dealings with each other. In re Hagshenas
The factors used to determine weather the presumption of gift to the marital estate has been overcome include the making of improvements, the payment of taxes and mortgages, the occupancy of the premises as a home or business and the extent of control and management of the property. In re Hunter
Intent
Where father testified that he wanted his son to share in business, “to have half the income: and to give him “the opportunity to buy the rest in case something happened to me,” the testimony was indicative of a gift. In re Brown
