In re Budorick
| Decision Date | 20 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1-19-0994 & 1-19-1539 (consolidated),s. 1-19-0994 & 1-19-1539 (consolidated) |
| Citation | 449 Ill.Dec. 119,178 N.E.3d 726,2020 IL App (1st) 190994 |
| Parties | IN RE MARRIAGE OF Heather BUDORICK, Petitioner-Appellee, and Daniel Budorick, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Daniel Budorick, of Chicago, appellant pro se.
Thomas J. Dillon, Wendy Kaleta Gattone, Nicholas S. Maragos, and Kyle T. Dillon, of McFadden & Dillon, P.C., of Chicago, for appellee.
¶ 1 On March 24, 2014, petitioner-appellee Heather Budorick filed a petition for dissolution of her marriage from the respondent-appellant Daniel Budorick. After entering a judgment addressing the custody and care for the parties' minor children in December 2014, the circuit court of Cook County held a trial on all remaining issues in August and September 2018. The court entered a judgment for dissolution on November 28, 2018, and a modified judgment for dissolution on April 10, 2019. Daniel appeals from both orders, arguing that the trial court erred in (1) classifying Heather's retirement accounts from her employment in California as nonmarital property, (2) classifying and valuing Heather's shares in certain restricted stock, (3) valuing Heather's and Daniel's retirement accounts at different points in time, (4) requiring Daniel to pay $50,000 in attorney fees, (5) calculating Heather's gross income for child support purposes, (6) apportioning the payment of the parties' children's future college tuition, (7) rejecting Daniel's argument that section 513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) ( 750 ILCS 5/513 (West 2018) ), was unconstitutional as applied to him, (8) declining to find that Heather's IRA withdrawals constituted a dissipation of marital funds, (9) failing to order Heather to reimburse Daniel for half of the utility payments on their shared residence, and (10) considering Heather's second motion for reconsideration.
¶ 2 For the following reasons, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County and remand the case for further proceedings.
¶ 4 Heather and Daniel were married on September 3, 1995, in California. Prior to their marriage, beginning in July 1991, Heather worked as a nurse for Los Angeles County USC Medical Center (USC). During her employment, Heather participated in the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association pension program (LACERA pension), and also contributed to a retirement plan for government employees (L.A. County 457 Plan). Her contributions to the LACERA pension occurred both pre- and post-marriage. The interest from her contributions continued to grow following the marriage. Heather took two leaves from her employment at the hospital before terminating her employment altogether on May 7, 1999. At that point, she received the funds from her L.A. County 457 Plan. In total, she was employed by USC for five years and eight months.
¶ 5 The parties had a son born in April 2000, and the family moved to Illinois in August 2001, shortly before the birth of their second son in November 2001.
¶ 6 In 2002, Heather began working for Hollister, Inc., a manufacturer of medical products. During her employment with Hollister, she participated in two retirement plans. The first plan, HolliShare, consists solely of contributions made by Hollister, while the second plan is a traditional 401(k) plan that allows for employee contributions (Hollister 401(k) Plan). Heather testified that she is only permitted to access HolliShare funds when she ends her employment with Hollister or when she retires. In August 2002, Heather rolled over $6,663.50 from her L.A. County 457 Plan to the Hollister 401(k) Plan.
¶ 7 Also as part of her employment with Hollister, Heather was offered the opportunity to purchase stock in Hollister's parent company, John Dickinson Schneider, Inc. (JDS, Inc.). She purchased stock every year from 2007 to 2011, and then again in 2013 and 2014, with the help of funds received from her parents. In 2013, she purchased 418 shares of stock, and in 2014, she purchased 334 shares. The stock is not publicly traded; can only be held by employees, officers, and directors of Hollister or JDS, Inc.; and must be sold back to the company when an employee leaves Hollister.
¶ 8 Heather filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on March 24, 2014. In the years following the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, Daniel pursued litigation, related to the marriage and the petition, in federal district court, the United States Bankruptcy Court, this court, and the Illinois Supreme Court, all of which combined to delay trial on the petition for over four years until August 2018.
¶ 9 First, on March 17, 2016, Daniel filed a lawsuit against Heather's parents in federal district court, alleging, inter alia , conversion and a civil conspiracy with Heather to divest Daniel of marital funds to which he was entitled. The next day (and three days before trial on Heather and Daniel's divorce proceedings was scheduled to begin in state court), Daniel filed a motion in state court to remove the divorce proceedings to federal court. The federal district court promptly struck Daniel's motion for removal, sua sponte . Ultimately, in December 2016, on the motion of Heather's parents, Daniel's federal lawsuit was dismissed, with the district court noting that Daniel "unnecessarily multiplied the proceedings."
¶ 10 Notwithstanding this admonishment, Daniel pursued an appeal of the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which, in October 2017, affirmed the district court's order of dismissal and granted Heather's parents' motion for sanctions against Daniel, finding that Daniel's appeal was frivolous and "unjustified by any purpose other than to stall the divorce proceedings."
¶ 11 While his federal litigation was pending, Daniel was also pursuing relief in this court in the form of interlocutory appeals. First, in June 2016, Daniel appealed the trial court's order denying his motion to modify custody. We held that we lacked jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal, and denied Daniel's petition for rehearing. See In re Marriage of Budorick , 2016 IL App (1st) 161605-U, 2016 WL 7434436. The Illinois Supreme Court denied Daniel's petition for leave to appeal on March 27, 2017. In re Marriage of Budorick , No. 121962 (Ill. Mar. 27, 2017).
¶ 12 On September 1, 2017, Daniel took a second interlocutory appeal to this court from the trial court's order denying his motion to stay the divorce proceedings during the pendency of his appeal of his federal lawsuit. An automatic stay was entered. On September 19, 2017, we granted Heather's emergency motion to dismiss Daniel's appeal and lifted the automatic stay.
¶ 13 Having failed to sufficiently delay the divorce proceedings through litigation in federal or state courts, Daniel turned to the United States Bankruptcy Court. On January 7, 2018, one day prior to the date on which trial was scheduled to commence in the divorce proceedings—after being rescheduled four times—Daniel filed for bankruptcy. This forced the trial court to immediately stay the divorce proceedings pending an order from the bankruptcy court.
¶ 14 On February 27, 2018, the bankruptcy court granted Heather's motion for relief from an automatic stay, allowing the trial court to reset trial for the fifth time to August 2018.
¶ 15 Daniel filed two notices of intent to claim dissipation, alleging that Heather withdrew $8,800 from a Vanguard account and $25,500 from various Roth IRA and investment accounts in April, May, and June 2016. Daniel further alleged that Heather withdrew unspecified amounts from investment accounts between December 2014 and the time of trial.
¶ 16 At trial, the evidence revealed that Daniel was an attorney earning approximately $123,000 per year, although that fluctuated due to the amount of hours he billed in any given year. Heather's employment at Hollister earned her approximately $100,000 per year.
¶ 17 In terms of assets, Heather contributed $20,699.69 to her LACERA pension plan, of which approximately $5,753.39 was contributed after the parties' marriage. Her Hollister 401(k) Plan (into which Heather rolled over her L.A. County 457 Plan) was valued at $226,402.12 as of January 1, 2015, and $304,870.77 as of June 30, 2018. Her HolliShare account was valued at $181,381.84 as of December 31, 2013, and at $433,897.96 as of December 31, 2017. Finally, Heather's 4,652 shares of JDS stock were valued at $147,735 as of May 1, 2017. Heather's parents gifted her approximately $11,000 to purchase the JDS stock in 2013 and 2014.
¶ 18 Heather also testified as to her expenses after the filing of the dissolution petition. Specifically, she testified that in December 2016, most of 2017, and January 2018, she paid the mortgage on the family home in its entirety. Previously, Heather and Daniel had each paid half the mortgage. Heather also paid for upkeep of the family home, including purchasing a new furnace and air-conditioner and paying the real estate tax escrow shortfall.
¶ 19 Heather testified that she withdrew funds from her Hollister 401(k) Plan, a Vanguard Roth IRA, and a Fidelity Roth IRA to pay attorney fees. She further testified to withdrawing $11,423.96 from her Vanguard Small Cap Index Roth IRA between June 30, 2018, and the time of trial to pay family expenses. Her 2017 tax return revealed that she took IRA distributions of $36,556 from Fidelity and Vanguard IRAs.
¶ 20 Heather also testified that she set up and managed educational accounts for the parties' children, beginning when they were born, which were primarily funded by her parents. Daniel had no involvement in maintaining those accounts.
¶ 21 For his part, Daniel paid for the utilities on the family home in their entirety beginning at the end of 2014.
¶ 22 The court issued its...
To continue reading
Request your trial