In re Marriage of Heroy, No. 1-07-0308.

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtGreiman
Citation385 Ill. App. 3d 640,895 N.E.2d 1025
Docket NumberNo. 1-07-0308.
Decision Date17 September 2008
PartiesIn re MARRIAGE OF Donna Tuke HEROY, Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, and David F. Heroy, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
895 N.E.2d 1025
385 Ill. App. 3d 640
In re MARRIAGE OF Donna Tuke HEROY, Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, and
David F. Heroy, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
No. 1-07-0308.
Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.
September 17, 2008.

[895 N.E.2d 1030]

James H. Feldman, Barry Levenstam, Jeremy M. Taylor of Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, Abby J. Clark of Davis & Campbell L.L.C., Peoria, for Appellant/Cross Appellee.

Leon I. Finkel, Michael J. Berger, Jennifer Cantrell of Berger/Schatz, Chicago, for Appellee/Cross Appellant.

[895 N.E.2d 1031]

Justice GREIMAN delivered the opinion of the court:


In November 2006, the circuit court of Cook County entered an order dissolving the 26-year marriage of respondent David Heroy and petitioner Donna Tuke Heroy. In addition to dissolving their union, the court made findings of fact pertaining to the value of the couple's marital and nonmarital estates and distributed the marital estate between the parties. Specifically, the trial court awarded David 45% of the marital property and Donna 55% of the marital property. The trial court further ordered that Donna receive $35,000 per month in permanent maintenance as well as retroactive temporary maintenance in the amount of $4,500 per month. Both parties appeal various orders entered in the trial court. On appeal, David disputes the maintenance and property distribution awards ordered by the trial court. Specifically, David contends that the trial court failed to properly consider the relevant factors outlined in the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2006)) in distributing the marital property and awarding maintenance and committed several valuation errors. Donna, in turn, contends that the trial court erred in finding that various real estate holdings acquired by David during the marriage and several accounts established by David during the marriage were non-marital property. We affirm as modified and remand with directions.

David and Donna married on September 13, 1980. At the time of their union, both parties had obtained law degrees and had established professional careers. Donna was working full-time as a law librarian, while David was a practicing attorney. During their union, the Heroys had three children. Following the birth of the couple's second child, Donna quit her career as a law librarian and devoted the majority of her time to raising the couple's children and managing the household. David continued working as an attorney throughout the duration of the marriage and was the primary breadwinner of the family.

On September 30, 2003, Donna filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. David responded with a counterpetition for dissolution of marriage, alleging irreconcilable differences. Thereafter, Donna and David entered into a joint-parenting agreement with respect to their minor son John, which provided for Donna to be John's primary residential parent and for David to finance John's educational expenses. In addition, the parties conducted discovery and filed various motions pertaining to the nature and value of their marital and nonmarital assets. The trial court entered a number of summary judgment orders resolving issues related to the value and classification of various assets.

The primary dispute between the parties concerned issues of property distribution and maintenance. Donna requested $63,000 per month in permanent maintenance and 65% of the marital estate. She also requested retroactive temporary monthly maintenance amounting to $10,000 to compensate her for her expenses during the divorce proceedings. David, in turn, proposed an equal division of the marital estate in lieu of any maintenance. The trial court conducted a hearing to resolve the parties' dispute concerning the distribution of marital assets as well as the issue of maintenance.

At the hearing, Donna and David provided testimony about the roles they assumed during the marriage as well as the standard of living that they enjoyed. At the time of their union, Donna and David had completed their educations and were working professionals. Donna had received a master of library science degree from Indiana University as well as a juris doctorate degree from DePaul University,

895 N.E.2d 1032

and at the time of their marriage in 1980, she was employed full-time as the head law librarian at Friedman and Koven. David also held a juris doctorate degree, which he received from the University of Michigan, and was a practicing attorney at Gardner, Carton and Douglas when they married. Following their union, the couple embarked on divergent career paths.

In 1981, Donna was hired as the chief law librarian at Winston and Strawn. She also started her own publishing company, Alert Publications, Inc. (Alert), which published newsletters for use in law and business libraries. On January 7, 1983, Donna gave birth to Elizabeth, the couple's first child. After taking a three- to four-month maternity leave, Donna resumed her full-time job at Winston and Strawn. Emily, the couple's second child, was born on February 7, 1985. Donna initially returned to work part-time following Emily's birth, but resigned her position as chief law librarian at Winston and Strawn in 1987. Following her resignation, Donna never resumed full-time employment outside of the home. Instead, she devoted approximately 10 hours per week to her publishing company, earning $5,000 annually. Donna gave birth to the couple's final child, John, on April 25, 1990.

David, however, continued working throughout the marriage and was the family's primary source of economic support. He began his legal career at Gardner, Carton and Douglas in 1976, earning approximately $18,000 per year. His salary rose to approximately $240,000 per year. In 1989 David commenced employment at Neal, Gerber and Eisenberg, where he became the chairperson of the bankruptcy department, earning approximately $350,000 to $475,000 annually. David then transferred to Bell Boyd & Lloyd in 1997, where he was the chairperson of the firm's bankruptcy department as well as a corporate partner. In 2000, David was named an equity partner at the firm and became a member of the firm's executive committee. Despite his high earnings, David indicated at the hearing that he expected a 30% to 40% decrease in his compensation over the next two to three years due to fundamental changes in the bankruptcy business. In addition to receiving income from his law firm, David indicated that throughout the marriage he received substantial stock and real estate rental income from Angola Wire Products, Inc. (AWP), a company started by his parents in 1961 that customizes steel wire products. Because David holds the office of AWP's assistant secretary, he also receives a $800 monthly honorarium from AWP.

Despite their different career paths, Donna and David were both actively involved in the lives of their children. When the children were younger, Donna handled all of the details pertaining to their medical care and was active in their social lives. She threw the children birthday parties, planned play dates, and helped them select and make Halloween costumes. Raised Roman Catholic, Donna also took control over the children's religious upbringing and enrolled them in Sunday School. David, in turn, worked until 7 or 8 p.m. each night, but would read to the children upon his return home. In addition, he taught each of the children how to ride bicycles and spent significant time with them on the weekends.

Each of the Heroy children played musical instruments, and Donna and David were both active in their children's musical endeavors. They both drove their children to their music lessons and summer music camps and attended their musical recitals. Donna also enrolled in a music note-reading class to better assist her children with their music efforts, while David assumed the role of John's "Suzuki coach," which

895 N.E.2d 1033

involved a 10- to 15-hour weekly commitment on David's part.

Donna and David also assumed active roles in their children's educational lives. The Heroys enrolled their children in private schools, which required significant parental involvement. While their children attended the Lincoln Park Cooperative Nursery School, Donna and David both spent time in the classroom and Donna was president of the school board from 1986 to 1987 and was active on several committees. Following their completion of the Lincoln Park Cooperative Nursery School, the Heroy children attended The Latin School. Donna and David both attended parent-teacher conferences and assemblies at The Latin School and David served as a trustee of the school for nine years.

All of the Heroy children attended boarding school during high school: Elizabeth attended Phillips Academy in Andover, Massachusetts, during her junior and senior years; Emily was enrolled in The Interlochen Arts Academy in Michigan during her junior and senior years; and John began attending Phillips Academy as a freshman in high school and was still enrolled at Phillips at the time of the hearing. David thoroughly investigated the boarding schools prior to enrolling his children in them, and Donna, in turn, helped the children move into their boarding school residences. David and Donna both attended "Parents Weekend" at their children's schools, and when Elizabeth and Emily completed high school, assisted them with their college selection efforts. Donna traveled with their daughters to visit various schools around the country in which they had expressed an interest, and both David and Donna read over, and provided feedback on, their respective college admissions essays. Elizabeth attended Northwestern University and then transferred to Brown University, while Emily received her degree from New York University. David paid each of his daughters' college tuition bills. Moreover, upon Elizabeth's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
152 practice notes
  • In re Foster, No. 1–12–3078.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 22, 2014
    ...of the Act. See In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, ¶ 7 1, 364 Ill.Dec. 852, 977 N.E.2d 761 ; In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 672, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). Indeed we also observe that Yvonne's argument does not consider transmutation pursuant to s......
  • Hamilton v. Hamilton, NO. 5-17-0295
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 5, 2019
    ...where the recipient spouse "devoted significant time to raising a family in lieu of pursuing a career." In re Marriage of Heroy , 385 Ill. App. 3d 640, 652, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). Indefinite or permanent maintenance is also appropriate in cases where the recipient spouse ......
  • In re Liszka, No. 3–15–0238.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 27, 2016
    ...responsibility of the trial court to resolve conflicting evidence concerning the valuation of marital assets. In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 663, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). As long as the trial court's valuation is within the range provided by the parties, it wi......
  • In re Dann, No. 2–10–0343.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 20, 2012
    ...judgment. ¶ 91 We turn to the several other cases Russell cites. The first group consists of five cases, In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008), In re Marriage of Werries, 247 Ill.App.3d 639, 186 Ill.Dec. 747, 616 N.E.2d 1379 (1993), In re Marr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
153 cases
  • In re Foster, No. 1–12–3078.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • August 22, 2014
    ...of the Act. See In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, ¶ 7 1, 364 Ill.Dec. 852, 977 N.E.2d 761 ; In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 672, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). Indeed we also observe that Yvonne's argument does not consider transmutation pursuant to s......
  • Hamilton v. Hamilton, NO. 5-17-0295
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 5, 2019
    ...where the recipient spouse "devoted significant time to raising a family in lieu of pursuing a career." In re Marriage of Heroy , 385 Ill. App. 3d 640, 652, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). Indefinite or permanent maintenance is also appropriate in cases where the recipient spouse ......
  • In re Liszka, No. 3–15–0238.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 27, 2016
    ...responsibility of the trial court to resolve conflicting evidence concerning the valuation of marital assets. In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 663, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). As long as the trial court's valuation is within the range provided by the parties, it wi......
  • In re Dann, No. 2–10–0343.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • July 20, 2012
    ...judgment. ¶ 91 We turn to the several other cases Russell cites. The first group consists of five cases, In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008), In re Marriage of Werries, 247 Ill.App.3d 639, 186 Ill.Dec. 747, 616 N.E.2d 1379 (1993), In re Marr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT