Marriage of Marr, In re, 1-92-2959

CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois
Citation638 N.E.2d 303,264 Ill.App.3d 932,202 Ill.Dec. 657
Docket NumberNo. 1-92-2959,1-92-2959
Parties, 202 Ill.Dec. 657 In re MARRIAGE OF Paul C. MARR, Petitioner-Appellant, and Mary P. Marr, Respondent-Appellee.
Decision Date30 June 1994

Page 303

638 N.E.2d 303
264 Ill.App.3d 932, 202 Ill.Dec. 657
In re MARRIAGE OF Paul C. MARR, Petitioner-Appellant,
Mary P. Marr, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 1-92-2959.
Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, Fourth Division.
June 30, 1994.
Rehearing Denied July 29, 1994.

Page 304

[202 Ill.Dec. 658] Michael T. Tristano, Family Law Associates, Ltd., Chicago, for petitioner-appellant.

Philip S. Aimen, P.C., Winnetka (Philip S. Aimen, of counsel), and Roger F. Maritote, Chicago, for respondent-appellee.

[264 Ill.App.3d 933] Justice JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court:

Petitioner, Paul C. Marr, filed this action in the circuit court of Cook County seeking to partition property he owned in joint tenancy with his ex-wife, respondent, Mary P. Marr. After several hearings, the trial court held that petitioner had no interest in the property since he abandoned the property and respondent expended funds in excess of more than half the value of the property in paying the mortgage, taxes, insurance, and maintenance in his absence. Petitioner appeals, alleging that the trial court (1) incorrectly

Page 305

[202 Ill.Dec. 659] calculated and reimbursed respondent for her expenses in maintaining the property, and (2) erred in denying his request for attorney fees.

We affirm.

Petitioner and respondent were married on September 2, 1964. During the marriage, the parties acquired certain property, including a marital home at 8242 South Nashville Street in Burbank, Illinois (hereinafter the property). On October 11, 1977, the trial court dissolved the marriage between the parties but reserved questions concerning the parties' property rights for a later hearing. Thereafter, petitioner left Illinois and resided in Florida, and later in Nevada. Respondent continued to live in the property with the parties' four children and paid all expenses relating thereto, including the mortgage, taxes, and maintenance.

Approximately 11 years later, on May 24, 1988, petitioner filed an amended complaint for partition, or in the alternative, seeking to have the property sold and the proceeds divided between the parties. Respondent filed a separate action in the trial court seeking specific performance of a marital settlement agreement between the parties allegedly entered into during the divorce proceedings. The trial court consolidated respondent's action with the partition action.

In her answer to the complaint for partition, respondent alleged that during the dissolution of marriage proceedings on October 20, 1977, petitioner orally agreed to convey the property to her in exchange for her waiver of maintenance and other marital rights. Petitioner denied the existence of such an agreement. At a hearing on July 5, 1991, the trial court found that there had been no agreement to convey the property, but even if such an agreement did exist, it was superseded by a subsequent written order of the trial court entered November 23, 1977, which made no reference to the alleged settlement agreement. The trial court also ordered that the property be partitioned, appointed a commissioner to appraise the property, and ordered the parties to submit an accounting of their contributions to the property.

[264 Ill.App.3d 934] On September 23, 1991, the commissioner submitted a report to the trial court indicating that the property, which was valued at $55,000, was not susceptible to partition. On January 30, 1992, respondent filed an amended accounting in which she itemized her expenditures for the property from 1976 through 1991. In her accounting, respondent claimed she expended $32,851.88 in mortgage payments, taxes, insurance and improvements to the property from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 89351.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • May 20, 2004 impact the ability of an attorney to bind his or her client in a traditional, representational context. See In re Marriage of Marr, 264 Ill.App.3d 932, 935, 202 Ill. Dec. 657, 638 N.E.2d 303 (1994) ("Generally, a client is bound by the acts or omissions of his attorney within the scope o......
  • In re Halko, Bankruptcy No. 96 B 9796.
    • United States
    • United States Bankruptcy Courts. Seventh Circuit. U.S. Bankruptcy Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • December 31, 1996
    ...R.R. Passenger Corp., 165 Ill.2d 100, 106, 208 Ill.Dec. 670, 649 N.E.2d 1331, 1334 (1995) (citations omitted); In re Marriage of Marr, 264 Ill.App.3d 932, 935, 202 Ill.Dec. 657, 660, 638 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1st Dist.1990); Knisley v. City of Jacksonville, 147 Ill.App.3d 116, 120, 100 Ill.Dec. ......
  • Horwitz v. Holabird & Root, 1-99-1377.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • February 24, 2000
    ...Flight Kitchen, Inc. v. Chicago Seven-Up Bottling Co., 22 Ill.App.3d 558, 562, 317 N.E.2d 663, 667 (1974); In re Marriage of Marr, 264 Ill.App.3d 932, 935, 202 Ill.Dec. 657, 638 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1994). Under Illinois law, an attorney's errors and misconduct are attributed to his clients; cl......
  • Rafferty-Plunkett v. Plunkett, 3-08-0659.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 11, 2009
    ...each part in light of the others. Sherrick, 214 Ill.App.3d at 96, 157 Ill.Dec. 917, 573 N.E.2d at 338; see In re Marriage of Marr, 264 Ill.App.3d 932, 935, 202 Ill.Dec. 657, 638 N.E.2d 303, 306 (1994) (finding petitioner estopped from denying the existence of an oral marital settlement agre......
  • 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