In re Marriage of Goodman
| Decision Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 2-17-0879 cons.,No. 2-17-0621,No. 2-17-0812,2-17-0621,2-17-0812,2-17-0879 cons. |
| Citation | 2019 IL App (2d) 170621 -U |
| Parties | In re MARRIAGE OF STACY GOODMAN, Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and DRU GOODMAN, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant. (Illinois Department of State Police, Intervenor-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 the Circuit Court of Lake County.
Honorable Joseph V. Salvi, Judge, Presiding.
¶ 1 Held: (1) Trial court did not err in granting husband's motion for summary judgment and finding that trust and trust's holdings constituted husband's non-marital property; (2) trial court did not err in finding that retained earnings of certain entities constituted husband's non-marital property; (3) trial court did not err in awarding wife periodic maintenance in lieu of maintenance in gross; (4) trial court did not err in entering plenary order of protection against husband; (5) trial court erred in granting wife's petition for contribution to attorney fees where wife failed to present sufficient evidence that amount of attorney fees requested was reasonable; (6) reviewing court would not address whether trial court improperly classified husband's interest in business as marital property where interest was awarded to husband and husband did not request a reallocation in the event classification of husband's interest by the trial court was found to be erroneous; and (7) trial court erred in dismissing for lack of jurisdiction the petition to intervene filed by the Illinois Department of State Police.
¶ 2 Petitioner, Stacy Goodman, and respondent, Dru Goodman, each appeal aspects of the judgment of the circuit court of Lake County dissolving their marriage. Stacy raises three issues on appeal. First, she argues that the trial court erred in granting respondent's motion for summary judgment and finding that a trust known as the Dru Goodman CXG Investment Trust (CXG Trust) and the holdings of the CXG Trust constitute Dru's non-marital property. Second, she challenges the trial court's classification of the retained earnings of certain entities as Dru's non-marital property. Third, she contends that the trial court erred in awarding her periodic maintenance in lieu of maintenance in gross. In his cross-appeal, Dru argues that the trial court erred in entering a plenary order of protection against him, granting Stacy's motion for contribution to her attorney fees, and classifying as marital property his interest in an entity known as DDG, Inc. (DDG). In addition, the Illinois Department of State Police (Department) filed a petition to intervene in the trial court requesting permission to file a motion to vacate an order entered by the trial court in conjunction with the plenary order of protection requiring Dru's firearm owners' identification (FOID) card be reinstated and returned to him. The Department argued that the court's order directed it to violate the plain language of section 8.2 of the FOID Card Act (430 ILCS 65/8.2 (West 2016)). Following a hearing, the trial court dismissed the Department's petition to intervene for lack of jurisdiction. This court, however, subsequently granted the Department's petition to intervene in this appeal. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the trial court erred in granting Stacy's request for contribution to her attorney fees. We also hold that the trial court erred in dismissing the Department's petition tointervene for lack of jurisdiction and we grant the Department's petition to intervene in the trial court. We otherwise affirm the judgment of the trial court and remand the case to the trial court to hold further proceedings on the Department's motion to vacate the order requiring it to reinstate and return Dru's FOID card to him.
¶ 4 At the outset, we note that the record on appeal is extensive, consisting of almost 17,000 pages. To place the issues in context, we initially provide a summary of the facts leading to this appeal. We will provide a more detailed discussion of the facts necessary to resolve the issues presented as those issues are addressed.
¶ 5 Stacy and Dru were married on October 19, 1996. Three children were born of the marriage. On November 27, 2013, Stacy filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On December 18, 2013, Dru filed his response to Stacy's petition for dissolution of marriage as well as a counterpetition for dissolution of marriage. On November 24, 2014, a "Joint Parenting Agreement and Final Custody Judgment" was entered by the trial court. The trial court subsequently granted Stacy's motion to voluntarily dismiss her petition for dissolution of marriage without prejudice, and the case proceeded on Dru's counterpetition.
¶ 6 At the time the parties filed their petitions for dissolution of marriage, Stacy was 44 years old and Dru was 48 years old. Stacy last worked outside the home 17 years prior to filing her petition for dissolution of marriage. Dru began working for DDG in January 1990 and became the company's president in 1999. Dru continued to be employed by DDG during the pendency of these proceedings. DDG is a holding company and sole member of various limited liability companies, including Tubular Services, LLC (Tubular) and Bulnit, LLC (Bulnit). Dru owns 0.1% of DDG's stock. The remainder of DDG's stock is owned by the CXG Trust. Of thevarious entities held by DDG, Tubular generates most of the net income.
¶ 7 On November 19, 2015, Dru filed a motion pursuant to section 2-1005(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) (735 ILCS 5/2-1005(d) (West 2014)) for summary judgment that the CXG Trust and its holdings are not marital property. On June 7, 2016, the trial court granted Dru's motion. Upon reconsideration, the trial court vacated the June 7, 2016, order. On March 23, 2017, the trial court reversed course once again, reinstating the June 7, 2016, order granting Dru's motion for summary judgment and finding that the CXG Trust and its holdings are non-marital property. The case eventually proceeded to an 11-day trial in May and June 2017.
¶ 8 Meanwhile, on March 22, 2017, Stacy filed a verified petition for an order of protection pursuant to the Illinois Domestic Violence Act of 1986 (Domestic Violence Act) (750 ILCS 60/101 et seq. (West 2016)). In an affidavit attached to the petition, Stacy alleged that for more than two years, Dru had a private investigator surveil her. Stacy's petition was docketed in the trial court as case No. 17 OP 486 and consolidated with the dissolution action. On April 12, 2017, the trial court entered an agreed interim order of protection that, among other things, prohibited Dru or any investigator or agent on his behalf from harassing or stalking Stacy. Pursuant to section 8.2 of the FOID Card Act (430 ILCS 65/8.2 (West 2016)), the Department revoked Dru's FOID card after entry of the agreed interim order of protection. The agreed interim order, which was set to expire in May 2017, was extended multiple times. On June 7, 2017, Stacy filed a petition for contribution to attorney fees and costs pursuant to sections 503(j) and 508(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503(j), 508(a) (West 2016)).
¶ 9 On July 26, 2017, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage. Relevant here, the trial court awarded Dru the following assets as his non-marital property: (1) the CXGTrust and the entities it holds (per the motion for summary judgment); and (2) the retained earnings held by various entities, including DDG, Tubular, and the CXG Trust. The trial court awarded Stacy the following assets as her non-marital property: (1) a 2012 Aston Martin automobile; and (2) various items of jewelry. The trial court valued Dru's non-marital estate at $187,636,231 and Stacy's non-marital estate at $244,450. The trial court determined that the marital estate consisted of the following property: (1) Dru's residence; (2) Dru's 0.1% interest in DDG; (3) Stacy's residence; (4) certain personal property; (5) certain banking and investment accounts; (6) various pre-distributions from the marital estate; and (7) various retirement accounts. The trial court valued the marital estate at $4,739,162, and awarded Stacy 72% of the marital estate (valued at $3,388,400) and Dru 28% of the marital estate (valued at $1,350,762).
¶ 10 The trial court also determined that an award of maintenance was appropriate, but that the statutory maintenance guidelines did not apply. Ultimately, the court ordered Dru to pay Stacy maintenance in the amount of $65,000 per month commencing July 1, 2017, and continuing thereafter indefinitely until the occurrence of the first of the following events: (1) Dru's death; (2) Stacy's death; (3) Stacy's remarriage; or (4) the cohabitation by Stacy on a resident, continuing conjugal basis. In so ordering, the court acknowledged that Stacy was in a "dating relationship" with an individual named Matt Kornick, but rejected Dru's allegation that Stacy and Kornick were cohabiting. In this regard, the court found that Kornick stays with Stacy only when the children are not with her and there was no evidence of shared day-to-day existence or shared use and maintenance of any meaningful day-to-day material resources. See In re Marriage of Miller, 2015 IL App (2d) 140530.
¶ 11 With respect to the issue of contribution to attorney fees, the court noted that Stacy's petition referenced a total of $3,163,234 incurred for attorney fees and costs. After an earlieraward of $1.1 million in interim and prospective legal fees, Stacy claimed that $2,063,234 was still outstanding. Pursuant to section 503(j) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(j) (West 2016)), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial