In re Marriage of Didier

• Decision Date: 26 December 2000
• Docket Number: No. 1-99-2564.,1-99-2564.
• Citation: 318 Ill.App.3d 253,742 N.E.2d 808,252 Ill.Dec. 270
• Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Gail W. DIDIER, Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, and Martin W. Didier, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

742 N.E.2d 808

318 Ill.App.3d 253

252 Ill.Dec. 270

In re MARRIAGE OF Gail W. DIDIER, Petitioner-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, and

Martin W. Didier, Respondent-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.

No. 1-99-2564.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, First Division.

December 26, 2000.

Richard Gigante, P.C., Chicago (Paul R. Jenen, of counsel), for Appellant.

Lake, Toback & Yavitz, Chicago, for Appellee.

Justice COHEN delivered the opinion of the court:

After trial on his wife's petition for dissolution of marriage, respondent Martin W. Didier (Martin) appeals the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County. Martin asserts that the trial court erred in (1) classifying certain property as nonmarital and awarding that property to petitioner Gail A. Didier (Gail), and (2) awarding Martin inadequate maintenance. Gail cross-appeals, claiming that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Martin any maintenance "whatsoever," (2) finding that certain funds that Gail transferred into Martin's business were a gift rather than a loan, and (3) relieving Martin of all child support obligations. We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand.

Martin Didier and Gail Adreani were married on February 14, 1976, in Chicago, Illinois. The couple had three children: Ryan, born May 3, 1980; Kelly, born May 22, 1982, and Kari, born April 26, 1985. At the time of their marriage, both Martin and Gail worked outside the home. Gail stopped working when their first child was born in 1980. Both before and during the marriage, Gail acquired substantial corporate and partnership interests that provided investment income ranging from $600,000 to $850,000 per year. Gail's income was used to support the family, including Martin. Martin was employed by a succession of different corporations between 1976 and 1990. Martin's highest W-2 income for any given year during this period was approximately $35,000. As of 1990, Martin became self-employed.

The parties were in agreement as to several issues related to the dissolution and stipulated to the following facts before the trial court:

A. Gail is a mother and homemaker and works part-time for McDonald's. Gail resides at 4161 Terri-Lyn Lane, Northbrook, Illinois, with the parties three children.

B. Martin is self-employed through Integration Technologies, Inc. (ITI), a subchapter "S" corporation incorporated by Martin in 1990.

C. Martin received as a gift from Gail's family 3.743%, or 5,600 shares, of capital stock in North Pier Terminal, Ltd., a closely held corporation. This stock is Martin's nonmarital property and should be assigned to him.

D. Gail received as a gift from her family 3.743%, or 5,600 shares, of capital stock in North Pier Terminal, Ltd. This stock is Gail's nonmarital property and should be assigned to her.

E. In addition to her North Pier Terminal, Ltd., stock, Gail owns the following corporate and partnership interests:

Name % Interest # of Shares Date(s) Acquired National Terminals Corp. 19.091353 38,484.4 8-21-89—04-02-97 Norridge Development Corp. 10 100 12-08-92 Courts of Amber Woods, Inc. 10 100 08-21-89 Norwood Builders, Inc. 20 20 03-01-89 Norwood Plaza, Inc. 20 500 08-25-89 Adreani Farms (partnership) 20 n/a 1974 Adreani Buildings(partnership)20 n/a 1983

F. The parties acquired the following vehicles during the marriage:

1. 1998 Ford Explorer

2. 1991 Ford Explorer

3. 1990 Ford Taurus

4. 1999 Toyota 4 Runner

5. 1998 Saab 900

Gail is the titleholder for all of the aforementioned vehicles. The parties have entered into an agreed order whereby Gail has assigned title of the 1990 Ford Taurus to Martin, provided that Martin takes all steps necessary to transfer title of said vehicle into his name with the Illinois Secretary of State, and Martin agrees to indemnify and hold Gail harmless with respect to the ownership and use of said vehicle.

G. Title to the residence located at 4161 Terri-Lyn Lane, Northbrook, Illinois (the Northbrook home) is held in a land trust under trust agreement No. 8096 with Parkway Bank & Trust Company. Gail is the owner of 100% of the beneficial interest under said trust agreement. Martin stipulates that if the residence is found to be Gail's nonmarital asset, he will not make any claims that he made marital contributions for which the marital estate is entitled to reimbursement. The stipulated value of the property is $430,000. There has never been a mortgage on the property. H. In addition, Gail has the following assets:

1. an ABN-AMRO brokerage account in the name of Gail A. Didier;

2. LaSalle Bank checking and savings accounts in the name of Gail A. Didier;

3. a $5,000 life insurance policy; and

4. all furniture, furnishings, fixtures, appliances, jewelry, clothing and other personal property in the Northbrook home or in her possession.

I. Martin owns 100% of the stock of ITI. ITI shows on its balance sheet, contained within the corporation's 1997 federal income tax return, a "Loan from Shareholders" in the amount $205,639.

J. In addition, Martin has the following assets:

1. LaSalle Bank checking and savings accounts in the name of Martin W. Didier;

2. a Charles Schwab IRA in the name of Martin W. Didier;

3. a MONY $25,000.00 death benefit life insurance policy; and

4. all furniture, furnishings, fixtures, appliances, jewelry, clothing and other personal property in his possession.

K. Martin has stipulated that neither he nor his attorney is seeking an award of attorneys fees from Gail.

The record before us on appeal is lengthy and fact-intensive. In the interests of brevity, we forego an initial recitation of the facts. Relevant facts will be discussed as we address each of the issues on direct and cross-appeal.

I. Classification of Marital Assets

Martin appeals the trial court's classification of the Northbrook home, Gail's corporate and partnership interests and certain accounts purportedly containing investment income received from those interests as Gail's nonmarital assets. We first consider the classification of the Northbrook home.

The record reflects that, after their marriage in 1976, the parties lived in a condominium complex known as "Washington Golf" in Niles, Illinois. Gail testified that one of the condominium units in the complex was a gift to her from her father, Raymond Adreani (Adreani). Adreani was the developer responsible for building the complex. Gail further testified that title to the condominium was held in her name only and that Martin's name had never been on the title. Martin offered no testimony to the contrary. In 1983, the parties began construction of the Northbrook home on a lot owned by Adreani in another of his real estate developments. In 1984, construction of the Northbrook home was completed and the family moved in. There was conflicting testimony as to the degree of Martin's involvement in the construction process. Although the trial court made no specific findings of fact on this point, Gail testified that she sold her condominium and used the proceeds of the sale to finance the construction of the Northbrook home. Gail further testified that in 1986, she paid Adreani $29,870 for the lot upon which the house was built. In 1986, Adreani executed a quitclaim deed transferring title to the Northbrook home to the Parkway Bank and Trust Company as trustee for Gail and named Gail as the 100% owner of the beneficial interest in a land trust. Gail testified that Martin's name had never been on the title to the Northbrook home. The Northbrook home never had a mortgage. Although Martin testified that he turned his paychecks over to Gail, Gail testified that all of the household expenses were paid from her nonmarital income. The trial court found that "Gail acquired the property at 4161 Terri-Lyn Lane, Northbrook by gift from her father," and assigned that property to Gail as her nonmarital asset.

"Before a court may dispose of property upon dissolution of marriage, the property must be classified as either marital or nonmarital. [Citation.] The trial court's classification will not be disturbed on appeal unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence." In re Marriage of Gurda, 304 Ill.App.3d 1019, 1023-24, 238 Ill.Dec. 236, 711 N.E.2d 339 (1999). Under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Dissolution Act) (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 1998)), there is a rebuttable presumption that all property acquired by either spouse after the date of marriage but before the entry of judgment of dissolution is marital property, regardless of how title is held. 750 ILCS 5/503(b) (West 1998). "The presumption can only be overcome with a showing, by clear and convincing evidence, that the property falls within one of the statutory exceptions listed in subsection [503](a) [of the Dissolution Act]. [Citations.] The party claiming that the property is nonmarital has the burden of proof. [Citation.] Any doubts as to the nature of the property are resolved in favor of finding that the property is marital." In re Marriage of Hegge, 285 Ill.App.3d 138, 141, 220 Ill.Dec. 853, 674 N.E.2d 124 (1996); 750 ILCS 5/503(a) (West 1998).

"There is another presumption that a transfer from a parent to a child is presumed to be a gift, and that presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary." In re Marriage of Hagshenas, 234 Ill.App.3d 178, 186, 175 Ill.Dec. 506, 600 N.E.2d 437 (1992). "In cases where a determination of the nature of the property at issue [is] found to be subject to these conflicting presumptions, the presumptions are considered to cancel each other out, and a simple manifest weight of the evidence standard is applied. [Citations.]" Hagshenas, 234 Ill.App.3d at 186-87, 175 Ill.Dec. 506, 600 N.E.2d 437. "That is, the presumption of a gift to a child is canceled out by the conflicting presumption that all property acquired after marriage is marital property, and thus, the trial court is free to determine the issue of whether the asset in...