Hamilton v. Hamilton
| Decision Date | 05 June 2019 |
| Docket Number | NO. 5-17-0295,5-17-0295 |
| Citation | 432 Ill.Dec. 73,128 N.E.3d 1237,2019 IL App (5th) 170295 |
| Parties | IN RE MARRIAGE OF Donald R. HAMILTON Jr., Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, and Mary L. Hamilton, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
2019 IL App (5th) 170295
128 N.E.3d 1237
432 Ill.Dec. 73
IN RE MARRIAGE OF Donald R. HAMILTON Jr., Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant,
and
Mary L. Hamilton, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
NO. 5-17-0295
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District.
Opinion Filed: June 5, 2019
Jayni D. Lintvedt, of Courtney Clark Law, P.C., of Belleville, for appellant.
Blake G. Meinders, of Sprague & Urban, Belleville, for appellee.
JUSTICE CHAPMAN delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.
¶ 1 Both parties appeal portions of the judgment dissolving their marriage. The respondent, Mary L. Hamilton, argues that (1) the court erred in failing to consider the parties' daughter's activities involving horses as extracurricular activities, (2) the court abused its discretion in ordering the marital home to be sold, (3) the court erred in failing to assign all of the marital debt, (4) the court erred in finding that Mary failed to make a prima facie showing of dissipation, (5) the court erred in failing to award Mary a portion of two retirement accounts liquidated by the petitioner, Donald R. Hamilton Jr. (Don), and (6) the court abused its discretion in denying her request for attorney fees. Don argues that (1) the court abused its discretion in awarding permanent maintenance to Mary and (2) the court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay half of his daughter's private school tuition. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
¶ 2 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 3 The parties were married in 1988. They raised three children together: Mary's son from a previous marriage, Tom, and two children born to the parties during their marriage, Donny and Katelyn. When the parties were first married, both worked outside the home, and Mary took college classes. Mary worked for the City of Red Bud as an administrative assistant. Later, however, she took a job in St. Louis. Her employer there paid her tuition. Mary earned an associate's degree and continued to take classes toward a bachelor's degree. At some point, however, the parties decided that Mary should take a job closer to Red Bud, where both Tom and Donny attended school. Mary did so. She stopped taking classes, partly because she no longer had an employer paying her tuition and partly because it gave her more time to devote to her two sons. She never completed her degree.
¶ 4 Katelyn, the only child who was still a minor when these proceedings took place, was born in 2000. When she was a year old, the parties agreed that Mary would stop working outside the home and be a stay-at-home mother. Mary did not work outside the home from 2001 until after the parties separated. She did not work full-time until 2014, when she began working as a grant writer for the Lutheran Synod Missouri.
¶ 5 In 2010, the parties purchased two horses for Katelyn. There is no dispute that the parties made a joint decision to buy Katelyn her first horse, Star. Later that year, they bought a second horse, Chloe. According to Mary, they agreed to buy a second horse so that Katelyn, who was only 10 years old at the time, could have an adult ride with her. According to Don, the parties discussed buying a second horse for Katelyn because Star was an older horse and Katelyn's equestrian skills would likely improve. He claimed, however, that Mary made the ultimate decision to purchase Chloe before they came to an agreement.
¶ 6 The parties owned two pieces of real estate—their marital home and a rental house located on an adjoining property. The tenant in the rental home paid monthly rent of $ 625.
¶ 7 Don moved out of the marital home in November 2010, but did not immediately file a petition for dissolution. He moved back into the marital home in the summer of 2012, but left again three months later. He did not file a petition for dissolution until February 2013.
¶ 8 During the period the parties were separated, Mary worked at various temporary jobs, although it is not clear how much time she actually worked. She also applied for permanent jobs with no success. In the fall of 2011, the parties agreed that Mary would home-school Katelyn, who was then going into sixth grade. As mentioned earlier, Mary began working in a full-time position as a grant writer in June 2014. In the fall of 2014, Katelyn enrolled at Lutheran High School South, a private school in Missouri near Mary's workplace.
¶ 9 The procedural history of this case is long and complicated. Don filed a petition for dissolution in February 2013. In July 2013, Mary filed a counterpetition for legal separation and motions requesting temporary child support, temporary maintenance, and an award of interim attorney fees. In December 2013, the court ordered Don to pay child support of $ 971 per month and to pay certain debts owed by the parties, including overdue mortgage payments and property taxes. The court denied Mary's requests for temporary maintenance and interim attorney fees, but it provided that Mary was to retain all of the income from the rental house.
¶ 10 In July 2014, Mary filed a petition for civil contempt, alleging that Don failed to make the mortgage and property tax payments as ordered. The court found Don in contempt and ordered him to make the payments, totaling $ 14,003.11. In October 2014, Don indicated that he was in the process of withdrawing funds from his retirement accounts in an effort to comply with the court's order. Mary filed a motion to deposit funds. She alleged that she received documents from Don requesting her signature so that he could withdraw a total of $ 21,150.38 from two retirement accounts, which exceeded the debt Don was ordered to pay by $ 7147.27. She asked the court to order Don to deposit the excess funds into the trust account of either party's attorney in order to protect her marital interest in the funds. The court granted the motion, but Don never deposited the funds.
¶ 11 The matter first came for a trial on all issues in April 2015. However, after the hearing, the matter was continued for nearly a year to allow the parties to complete further discovery. During this period, Mary filed various motions to compel discovery and motions for sanctions. Don also filed at least one motion for sanctions against Mary. The court ordered Don to pay $ 400 of Mary's attorney fees, but otherwise denied all motions for sanctions. Temporary child support was raised to $ 1435 per month in January 2016 due to an increase in Don's income. The parties finally completed discovery in March 2016, and the court held two additional hearings in March and July 2016.
¶ 12 Evidence presented at the three hearings showed that Mary's gross income from her job was $ 4119 per month. Don had a base salary of $ 4000 per month, but he also earned commissions. His income from commissions fluctuated. The evidence Don presented to the court showed that he had a gross monthly income of $ 5258 in 2014 and a gross monthly income of $ 11,185 in 2015. Don testified, however, that the 2015 figure included a signing bonus from his new job. We will discuss other relevant evidence, along with our discussion of the numerous issues the parties raise.
¶ 13 The trial court entered a judgment dissolving the parties' marriage in May 2017. The court incorporated Mary's proposed parenting plan, which gave Mary the majority of parenting time with Katelyn and all decision-making responsibility. The court ordered Don to pay child support and permanent maintenance. In calculating the amount of maintenance, the court found that Don's gross monthly income was $ 8221, a figure derived from the average of the two years for which he provided income information. In addition to child support, the court ordered Don to pay half of Katelyn's education expenses, but it found that the activities related to Katelyn's interest in horses did not constitute extracurricular activities, and it did not order Don to contribute to the expenses for those activities. The court divided the parties' vehicles and personal property pursuant to the parties' agreement. It awarded both parties their own retirement accounts. It ordered the parties to sell the two pieces of real estate and divide the proceeds after paying any remaining debt. The court divided some of the parties' debts, but Mary contends that it did not divide all of their debts. The court denied Mary's request for attorney fees and rejected her claim of dissipation.
¶ 14 Both parties filed motions to reconsider, which the court denied. Both parties then filed timely notices of appeal.
¶ 15 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 16 A. Expenses for Katelyn's Horses and Related Activities
¶ 17 Mary first argues that the court erred in finding that the expenses related to Katelyn's interest in horses did not constitute expenses for extracurricular activities. She acknowledges that whether to order a parent to pay a portion of a child's extracurricular activity expenses is a matter within the discretion of the trial court. She argues, however, that the court did not exercise this discretion due to its erroneous conclusion that Katelyn's...
To continue reading
Request your trial