In re Marriage of Hubble

• Docket Number: 4-20-0657
• Decision Date: 12 January 2022
• Citation: In re Marriage of Hubble, 2022 IL App (4th) 200657U, 4-20-0657 (Ill. App. Jan 12, 2022)
• Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF RACHELLE HUBBLE, Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and TODD HUBBLE, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.
• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois

1

2022 IL App (4th) 200657-U

In re MARRIAGE OF RACHELLE HUBBLE, Petitioner-Appellant and Cross-Appellee, and TODD HUBBLE, Respondent-Appellee and Cross-Appellant.

No. 4-20-0657

Court of Appeals of Illinois, Fourth District

January 12, 2022

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 Circuit Court of Champaign County No. 16D589 Honorable Randall B. Rosenbaum, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Turner and Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

HOLDER WHITE JUSTICE.

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed, concluding the trial court did not err by (1) determining petitioner was in a de facto marriage relationship, (2) finding respondent dissipated marital assets, and (3) awarding petitioner 60% of the marital property.

¶ 2 In December 2016, petitioner, Rachelle Hubble, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage to respondent, Todd Hubble. In November 2020, the trial court entered a written order (1) determining respondent dissipated marital assets by incurring medical debt in the amount of $113, 706, (2) awarding petitioner 60% of the marital property and respondent 40% of the marital property, and (3) finding petitioner had a de facto marriage with her paramour and denying maintenance.

¶ 3 Petitioner appeals, arguing the trial court erred by finding she had a de facto marriage with her paramour. Respondent cross-appeals, arguing the court erred by (1) finding respondent dissipated marital assets by incurring $113, 706 in medical debt and (2) awarding petitioner 60% of the marital property. For the following reasons, we affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In December 2016, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. The petition alleged the parties married on July 16, 1994, and had four children: J.H. (born October 6, 1999), twins C.H. and C.H. (born October 25 2002), and E.H. (born July 1, 2005). On February 19, 2019 the trial court entered an order providing that discovery "shall be completed by" August 16, 2019. The February 19, 2019, pretrial order also provided that dissipation claims "shall be disclosed by" August 16, 2019. On September 19, 2019, petitioner filed a dissipation claim alleging wasteful dissipation of marital assets.

¶ 6 A. Trial

¶ 7 The trial began on October 21, 2019, with three days of testimony. The trial continued in October 2020, with two days of testimony. We summarize only the evidence necessary for the resolution of this appeal.

¶ 8 1. Petitioner

¶ 9 During the October 2019 trial, petitioner testified she worked for Carle Hospital as a physician liaison and earned $86, 000 per year. She earned approximately $79, 000 in 2018 $65, 000 in 2017, and $61, 000 in 2016. She previously worked in real estate, in pharmaceuticals, and as a substitute teacher. Petitioner worked, at least part-time, for a large portion of the marriage. Respondent traveled for work and petitioner was home with the children every night. During the October 2020 trial, petitioner testified that August 19 2020, was her last day working for Carle. According to petitioner, she received $2676 per month in unemployment income and respondent's gross monthly income was $29, 166.66. Petitioner recently interviewed for two positions.

¶ 10 Prior to the separation, petitioner testified the parties "lived in a very nice, two-story house with six bedrooms and four fireplaces, a sunroom, workout room, [and an] additional den/office. We had a shed with all the boats and all of the toys and equipment on six acres." Petitioner now lived in a house approximately half the size but in a nice subdivision near respondent. According to petitioner, her shopping habits changed following the separation and she no longer enjoyed the same standard of living. The parties previously took multiple vacations each year. Petitioner testified she felt dependent on maintenance to support her lifestyle and her children.

¶ 11 There was a court order for respondent to pay petitioner $5000 per month for unallocated support. From June 2018 to October or November 2018, respondent reduced his unallocated support payments to $1600 twice per month. According to petitioner, respondent's bonuses were not included in calculating the $5000 unallocated support payment. Petitioner testified she wanted respondent's bonuses included in his income for purposes of calculating spousal support and child support, but she agreed to "stick with one number even though it very likely would rise every year."

¶ 12 Petitioner testified she and George Kasbergen had been in a relationship for two and a half years. Petitioner testified she and Kasbergen never lived together and broke up three or four times. Petitioner denied that Kasbergen lived in the rental house with her and testified he stayed the night "[m]aybe five times in the last year." Petitioner testified that her recent overnight stays with Kasbergen were very different from early in the relationship. On nights they spent together, petitioner testified Kasbergen left early in the morning. Petitioner identified a document as being Kasbergen's journal that "reflects at the beginning of our relationship." When asked if she spent substantial time with Kasbergen, petitioner stated, "I don't know. Okay. So it varies. So I might not see him one day. The next day I might see him for two minutes. The next day I might see him for 15 minutes. The next day I might see him for two to four hours if we have a meal together. So it varies greatly."

¶ 13 According to petitioner, Kasbergen gave her a diamond necklace and diamond earrings as gifts. Kasbergen also bought petitioner a winter coat for approximately $500 and a Lululemon jacket. Petitioner testified she typically spent the Fourth of July with Kasbergen and they spent one Thanksgiving together. Petitioner and Kasbergen exchanged Christmas gifts but did not celebrate the holiday together with their families. In December 2016, Kasbergen gave her a $2500 Amazon gift card to help petitioner buy gifts for her children.

¶ 14 Petitioner testified she made medical appointments for Kasbergen for two to three years because she was a nurse. Kasbergen's oldest son was recently in the hospital and petitioner assisted Kasbergen with medical care for him. On September 30, 2019, petitioner provided Kasbergen with a list of questions to ask about his son's medical treatment. According to petitioner, attending church with Kasbergen was "like a date."

¶ 15 Petitioner testified she went to Aruba in 2017 with her children, Kasbergen, and his children. Kasbergen paid for a portion of the 2017 Aruba trip, but petitioner could not recall exactly what he paid for. In 2019, petitioner again went to Aruba with her children, Kasbergen, and some of his children. Petitioner testified Kasbergen did not pay for any portion of the 2019 Aruba trip. In 2019, Kasbergen paid for petitioner to go to Italy with Kasbergen, his brother, and his sister-in-law. Petitioner, her daughter, Kasbergen, and his daughter took a trip to California in July 2019, and Kasbergen paid for a recreational vehicle for the week. Petitioner testified she and Kasbergen took multiple trips to Chicago, Iowa, Las Vegas, and Dallas and shared the expenses.

¶ 16 In January 2019, the sale of the marital residence closed and $198, 385.54 was deposited in respondent's attorney's trust account. Petitioner testified that, in February 2019, she rented a house at 1612 Briarwood Lane in Mahomet, Illinois. According to petitioner, she had a written two-year lease agreement with GK Family, LLC (GK Family). Petitioner identified canceled checks and rent receipts for rent payments from February to August 2019. One of petitioner's exhibits showed the checks for her security deposit and first month's rent cleared on February 25, 2019. Petitioner chose to lease a house instead of purchasing a home because the equity from the sale of the marital residence was held in escrow at the time. Petitioner intended to purchase the Briarwood Lane house once the divorce was final.

¶ 17 Kasbergen was the manager of GK Family. According to petitioner, she talked with Kasbergen prior to the GK Family's purchase of the Briarwood Lane home and asked for a couch, a rug, a hutch, and outdoor furniture to be negotiated in the purchase price of the house. Petitioner testified she was interested in the Briarwood Lane home because it was close to respondent. According to petitioner, she did not pick out the house, but she discussed it with Kasbergen. Petitioner walked through the house at least twice, and Kasbergen accompanied her once. Petitioner was present when Kasbergen closed on the home. According to petitioner, GK Family put new flooring in and had some areas of the house painted.

¶ 18 During the October 2020 trial, petitioner testified she terminated her lease for the Briarwood Lane property and moved to 1401 North Brookhaven in January or February 2020. According to petitioner, Kasbergen agreed to terminate the lease early and without penalty. GK Family no longer owned the Briarwood Lane property. At the time of the October 2020 trial, petitioner testified she was no longer in a relationship with Kasbergen. According to petitioner, she and Kasbergen remained friends and saw each other a few times a week.

¶ 19 Petitioner testified respondent suffered a snow mobile accident in December 2016. According to petitioner, there was a balance of $113, 076 from the Mayo Clinic. When petitioner was asked about the dissipation claim, respondent's counsel objected and argued the dissipation claim was filed on September 19, 2019, and not before the August 16, 2019 deadline set by the February 19,...