In re Marriage of Geiser

• Decision Date: 09 March 2021
• Docket Number: NO. 4-20-0294,4-20-0294
• Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF KRISTINE K. GEISER, Petitioner-Appellee, and COLBY F. GEISER, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

2021 IL App (4th) 200294-U

In re MARRIAGE OF KRISTINE K. GEISER, Petitioner-Appellee,

and

COLBY F. GEISER, Respondent-Appellant.

NO. 4-20-0294

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

March 9, 2021

NOTICE

This Order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

Appeal from the Circuit Court of McLean County

No. 15D384

Honorable Sarah R. Duffy, Judge Presiding.

PRESIDING JUSTICE KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court.

Justices Turner and Holder White concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding respondent failed to establish any error with respect to the trial court's denials of his motions for a continuance and findings concerning child support and the classification and distribution of marital property.

¶ 2 Respondent, Colby F. Geiser, appeals from the trial court's judgment dissolving his marriage to petitioner, Kristine K. Geiser. On appeal, Colby argues the trial court's (1) denial of his motion for a continuance was an abuse of discretion, (2) findings he is obligated to Kristine for child support in the amount of $1248 per month and for child support arrears in the amount of $14,785.68 were an abuse of discretion, and (3) finding he owed Kristine $168,706.60 for her share of the marital property was against the manifest weight of the evidence. We affirm.

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 4 In October 2011, Kristine and Colby married. They then had one child together. In August 2015, Kristine filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In her petition, Kristine sought temporary and permanent care and custody for the parties' child as well as an order requiring Colby to pay her temporary and permanent child support. In October 2015, counsel entered an appearance on behalf of Colby and, in February 2016, filed an answer to Kristine's petition on Colby's behalf. Litigation then ensued before the trial court for about four years.

¶ 5 During the pretrial litigation, the trial court, after awarding Kristine temporary decision making responsibilities for the parties' child and the majority of parenting time, issued orders directing Colby to make temporary child support payments to Kristine, provide Kristine written documentation setting forth his income, pay one-half of an evaluation for the child, and pay for a portion of attorney fees incurred by Kristine. On multiple occasions, the court found Colby to be in indirect civil contempt for his failure to comply with these orders.

¶ 6 On March 11, 2019, the trial court entered a final pretrial order concerning the allocation of parental responsibilities, which scheduled a final pretrial conference for May 2, 2019, and a trial for May 28, 29, and 30, 2019.

¶ 7 On April 11, 2019, Colby's counsel filed a motion to withdraw from the case. The motion alleged Colby was unable to fulfill a financial obligation to counsel, substantial time and proceedings would be required for further representation of Colby, Colby had no objection to counsel withdrawing, and withdrawal could be accomplished without any material adverse effect to Colby.

¶ 8 On May 2, 2019, the trial court commenced the final pretrial conference for theallocation of parental responsibilities. The record on appeal contains no transcripts, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts from the conference. As gleaned from a docket entry, the court received a written acknowledgement during the conference. The acknowledgment, which is contained in the record on appeal, is signed by Colby and dated May 2, 2019. It indicates Colby received a copy of the motion to withdraw and had no objection. The court entered an order which allowed Colby's counsel to withdraw, granted Colby 21 days to obtain new counsel, continued the final pretrial conference for the allocation of parental responsibilities to May 24, 2019, and directed Colby's prior counsel to mail a copy of the order to Colby. That same day, Colby's prior counsel filed a certificate of service indicating he served a copy of the court's order upon Colby by both mail and e-mail.

¶ 9 On May 20, 2019, Colby filed a pro se appearance.

¶ 10 On May 21, 2019, Colby filed a motion for a continuance. In his motion, Colby requested the trial court to continue the scheduled trial, in part, to allow him time to secure new counsel.

¶ 11 On May 24, 2019, the trial court held the continued final pretrial conference for the allocation of parental responsibilities. The record on appeal contains no transcripts, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts from the continued conference. As gleaned from a docket entry, Colby appeared at the hearing and the trial for the allocation of parental responsibilities remained scheduled to commence on May 28, 2019.

¶ 12 On May 28, 29, and 31, 2019, the trial court held a trial for the allocation of parental responsibilities. The record on appeal initially contained no transcripts, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts from the trial. Colby later—at the same time he filed his reply brief—filed a motion to supplement the record with a portion of the transcripts from May 28, 2019, which this court generously granted with no objection from Kristine. As gleaned from the transcripts provided, Colby addressed his motion for a continuance immediately prior to the commencement of the trial. Colby noted he "asked for a continuance" during the continued final pretrial conference and the court made a "decision at that time." Colby requested the court to "revisit your decision and grant my request to continue" to secure counsel. Kristine, in response, noted with respect to the continued final pretrial conference, "[t]he court heard the motion ***[,] made the determination." After hearing from Colby and Kristine, the court stated it considered Colby's comments as a "renewed" motion for a continuance and it was "once again" denying the motion. In support of its decision, the court stated as follows:

"Just for practical purposes, your counsel filed a motion to withdraw on April 11[,] 2019, and within that document that he filed, he indicated that you *** had no objection to his withdrawal from [the] case. So that means to me that as of at least April 11[,] 2019, you were aware your counsel was getting out of the case.

Your motion to continue is not filed until the week of final pre-trial, which is approximately or actually just at one week prior to a three-day trial setting. It would be a different story in this particular case if this was a relatively new matter and it had been rushed to hearing, but I believe I mentioned on Friday, and I will mention again for the record, this case was filed on August 10[,] 2015. It appears that you entered your appearance on October 9[,]2015. So by my math, that's three-and-a-half years that this case has been pending.

Our [s]uprme [c]ourt has given me direction, as well as any other judge hearing family matters, that we are to bring these cases to resolution within 18 months absent a good cause, and in this particular case, that has gone way beyond that time, and, in fact, we have had these trial dates set for an extended period of time, as well. Specifically, I set these trial dates on March 11[,] 2019[,] giving you three days, three full days of the court's time, and so one week prior to that suggesting a motion to continue is appropriate because you need counsel, in my mind, is not a sufficient reason to continue this matter."

After denying Colby's renewed motion for a continuance, the court heard evidence and argument concerning the allocation of parental responsibilities. The record on appeal contains no transcripts, bystander's report, or agreed statement of facts from that portion of the trial.

¶ 13 In June 2019, the trial court entered an allocation of judgment and parenting time order.

¶ 14 In July 2019, the trial court entered a final pretrial order concerning the financial issues, which scheduled a trial for August 26, 2019, with trial exhibits to be provided to the opposing party by August 19, 2019.

¶ 15 On August 26, 2019, the trial court held a trial on the financial issues. Kristine testified and presented approximately 100 exhibits. Colby testified and presented testimony fromhis fiancée, Dara White, and approximately 10 exhibits. The following is gleaned from the testimony and exhibits presented.

¶ 16 Kristine explained obtaining discovery information from Colby had been an arduous and drawn out process. With respect to Colby's income for child support purposes, Kristine believed Colby had been intentionally trying to shield or avail ownership of businesses at which he worked—Colby Company and Clean Cut Painting and Handyman—by listing only his fiancée as the owner. Because Colby had not provided balance sheets for the businesses, Kristine subpoenaed bank records and then reviewed deposits and calculated estimated expenses to determine Colby's income between 2017 and 2019. From her review, Kristine calculated Colby having income during that period of $108,280.89. Kristine also reviewed tax statements to determine Colby's income for 2013 and 2014. From her review, Kristine calculated Colby having income of $316,582 for 2013 and $188,488 for 2014. Kristine provided a demonstrative exhibit, exhibit No. 33, which set forth a calculation of Colby's average income of $204,450 based upon her other calculations. Kristine also testified about Colby's child support arrearage totaling $14,785.16. With respect to the classification and distribution of property, Kristine produced exhibit Nos. 36 through 85 showing real estate valued at over $2 million and exhibit Nos. 86 through 95 showing net proceeds from the sale of some real estate at $339,413. Kristine testified Colby failed to provide a full accounting of where the proceeds from the disposal of the real estate had gone.

¶ 17 Colby explained he provided Kristine with all the requested discovery information. With respect to his income for child support...