In re Cramm
| Decision Date | 06 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | NO. 4-13-0112,4-13-0112 |
| Parties | In re: MARRIAGE OF TAMMIE E. CRAMM, Petitioner-Appellee, and KEVIN V. CRAMM, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
NOTICE
This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
Appeal from Circuit Court of Adams County
Honorable Mark A. Drummond, Judge Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: Where the respondent ex-husband's nonmarital property was nearly double that of the marital estate, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it (1) awarded petitioner ex-wife rehabilitative maintenance in the amount of $3,000 per month for 3 years, and (2) divided the marital property, awarding 60% to petitioner and 40% to respondent.
¶ 2 In December 2009, petitioner, Tammie E. Cramm, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against her husband, respondent Kevin V. Cramm. In November 2012, the trial court entered its judgment of dissolution. The trial court awarded petitioner a 60% share of the marital assets and $3,000 per month maintenance for three years with payments to begin immediately upon the entry of the judgment. Respondent filed a motion to reconsider, but the trial court denied the motion. Respondent appeals the denial of his motion to reconsider and the judgment of dissolution and argues the trial court erred in (1) awarding petitioner maintenance of $3,000per month for three years and (2) awarding petitioner a 60% share of the marital property. We affirm.
¶ 4 In March 1989, petitioner married respondent. After the parties married, they moved to Mendon, Illinois, and they continued to live there until October 2009, when the parties separated. When they married, respondent was self-employed as a farmer. Petitioner was employed as a substitute teacher and later became a full-time teacher's aide.
¶ 5 In January 1995, respondent was diagnosed with diverticulitis. The illness caused respondent to require surgery, during which the surgeon abraded respondent's cornea. In January 1997, respondent filed suit for malpractice against the surgeon. The medical malpractice case went to trial, and in August 2000, the jury entered a verdict in favor of respondent. The jury awarded respondent $557,500 in damages, including $150,000 for loss of normal life, $100,000 for pain and suffering, $7,500 for medical expenses incurred as of the date of the award, and $300,000 for lost income and future lost income. The jury also awarded petitioner $50,000 for loss of consortium. The entire award was placed into an investment account that was held jointly with the right of survivorship by each party.
¶ 6 The corneal scarring on respondent's left eye as a result of the abrasions on the cornea caused respondent a great deal of pain. He was determined to be legally blind in his left eye, while his right eye had 20/20 vision with corrective lenses. He made frequent visits to various ophthalmologists during the late 1990s and early 2000s, but those visits became much less frequent as time passed. Respondent will always have some discomfort in his left eye as a result of the abrasions to his cornea, but it does not appear frequent treatment of the left eye willbe required.
¶ 7 Some evidence suggested, however, respondent's eye condition had not affected and will not affect his work as a farmer. In fact, respondent's ophthalmologist stated, as far as she knew, respondent's left eye injury has not impacted his ability to drive. Respondent is still licensed to drive in the State of Illinois. Respondent's ophthalmologist testified respondent never reported any inability to perform his daily activities, nor did he report any inability to perform his farming activities. Evidence showed in the time following the malpractice, the parties' neighbors, petitioner, and their daughter all helped with the farmwork. Respondent also had to hire out some of his farming activities, such as "spraying," as those activities would irritate his injured eye.
¶ 8 In December 2009, petitioner filed for divorce in the Adams County circuit court. Petitioner was then working as a full-time teacher's aide and taking home $176.41 per month in net pay (approximately $790 was deducted each month from her pay for the family's health insurance). Respondent was self-employed as a farmer and earning an "average disposable income" (or net income) of $72,107 per year. The parties' daughter was enrolled at Western Illinois University, and the parties were paying their daughter's tuition and room and board.
¶ 9 In May 2010, respondent's uncle passed away, leaving respondent approximately 240 acres of farmland on which respondent had previously been paying rent, as well as his farming equipment and machinery. Respondent also received a one-third interest in his uncle's residence subject to the life estate of his uncle's wife. Respondent's receipt of these assets was pending at the time of the proceedings in this case.
¶ 10 In November 2012, the trial court entered its judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Pursuant to the judgment of dissolution, the Adams County judge ordered respondent to begin paying petitioner $3,000 per month maintenance immediately and to continue for three years.
¶ 11 The trial court then divided the parties' marital property, ordering the marital estate, valued at $1,036,346, be split with petitioner receiving a 60% share and respondent receiving a 40% share. The couple had one significant group of assets that made up a majority of their marital estate: investment accounts with Investment Planners, Inc., which contained the personal injury awards received as a result of the medical malpractice lawsuit. The balance of those accounts in April 2012 was $640,219. The parties had other marital property, including vehicles, farm equipment, an ownership interest in a time-share ranch in Caulfield, Missouri, bank accounts of the farm, beans in storage, and retirement funds and accounts.
¶ 12 Each of the parties had nonmarital property assigned by the trial court. Petitioner was assigned her 1964 John Deere tractor valued at $6,500, her Teacher's Retirement System account valued at $12,688, her wedding ring, and various household items and recreational equipment. Respondent, on the other hand, had a much greater amount of nonmarital property. Respondent was assigned the following nonmarital property: 66 acres of farm real estate valued at $346,000; the home on those 66 acres, valued at $125,000 (the home in which the parties lived was nonmarital property with $30,000 marital equity); 240 acres of farmland he had inherited from his uncle valued at $1,416,000; farm equipment valued at $31,645; and various items of personal property. In total, respondent's nonmarital property was valued at approximately $2 million.
¶ 13 In making its determination on maintenance, the trial court noted since respondent received nearly $2 million worth of property from his generous uncle, petitioner's request formaintenance of $3,000 per month for three years was modest. The trial court stated because the marriage had lasted 22 years, and because petitioner assisted in the farming operation after respondent's injury, a larger maintenance award could have been considered by the court. But, because petitioner "seemed intent" on finishing her degree, the court found three years of rehabilitative maintenance was proper.
¶ 14 In making its determination on the division of property, the trial court specifically noted its consideration of respondent's request to receive a larger portion of the personal injury award. The court, however, decided because respondent had nonmarital assets totaling nearly twice the marital estate, a 60/40 split as to the marital property was proper.
¶ 17 Respondent filed a motion to strike point III of petitioner's brief. Specifically, respondent would have the court strike portions of petitioner's brief stating facts without a citation to the record. Moreover, respondent asks this court to strike the portion of petitioner's brief arguing the trial court erred by failing to award petitioner a higher maintenance award and also permanent maintenance.
¶ 18 To assert purported errors to the appellate court, appellees are required to file a notice of cross-appeal. Ill. S. Ct. R. 303(a)(3) (eff. June 4, 2008); see Martis v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co., 388 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1024, 905 N.E.2d 920, 927 (2009). Petitioner argues in her brief that the trial court abused its discretion by not awarding permanent maintenance, but she failed to file a notice of cross-appeal. Therefore, the court is limited to the review of the issues presented by respondent. Martis, 388 Ill. App. 3d 1017, 1024, 905 N.E.2d 920, 927. Whilepetitioner's counsel should comply with the supreme court rules when writing appellate briefs, and we trust he will do so in the future, we need not strike point III of petitioner's brief, since this issue is not properly before us absent a cross-appeal. Id. Motion denied.
¶ 20 Respondent first contends the trial court erred in awarding petitioner $3,000 per month maintenance for three years. Respondent contends the trial court placed too much weight on his inheritance of nearly $2 million worth of nonmarital property (the farmland, farm equipment, and farm machinery) through the estate of a deceased uncle. Respondent argues because he has farmed and will continue to farm the inherited land, the land will not and cannot be liquidated to meet his needs. Moreover, respondent argues the maintenance award, which amounts to approximately 50% of his "average disposable income," is inappropriate where petitioner failed to demonstrate her "legitimate" monthly expenses to ...
To continue reading
Request your trial