Case Law In re Price

In re Price

Document Cited Authorities (5) Cited in (4) Related

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Steven L. Blakely and Nicolas Boileau, both of Acton & Snyder, LLP, of Danville, for appellant.

Kevin M. Colombo, of Saikley, Garrison, Colombo & Barney, LLC, of Danville, for appellee.

OPINION

Justice KNECHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

[369 Ill.Dec. 289]¶ 1 On June 13, 2011, the trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage of petitioner, Jill Anne Price, and respondent, Melvin Lee Price. All other issues were reserved. At a later hearing on pending issues, the court heard evidence and the parties submitted financial affidavits and final written arguments. The court took the matter under advisement. On July 20, 2011, Jill filed a petition for contribution to attorney fees and costs. On August 24, 2011, the court conducted a hearing on Jill's petition for contribution and took the matter under advisement. On October 18, 2011, the court entered its supplemental order to the judgment of dissolution of marriage. This judgment ordered Melvin to pay Jill the following: (1) permanent maintenance in the amount of $7,500 per month; (2) $15,000 toward her attorney fees; and (3) an equalization payment of $330,275.10 within 90 days.

¶ 2 Melvin appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in (1) awarding Jill permanent maintenance in the amount of $7,500 per month; (2) ordering him to pay $15,000 of Jill's attorney fees; and (3) ordering a $330,275.10 equalization payment to be made within 90 days of the court's judgment.

¶ 3 We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 On April 23, 1977, Melvin and Jill were married. Two children were born during the marriage, Kate Elizabeth Thorlton (born October 18, 1978) and Kristina Lee Price (born March 14, 1981). Shortly after they married, Melvin and Jill began residing at a home owned by Melvin's parents located on North Bowman in Danville, Illinois, where the parties remained until 2003, when they moved to a residence on Lewis Road in Danville, Illinois.

¶ 6 Since September 2007, Jill has resided on Fairway Drive in Danville, Illinois. At the time of trial, Jill was 61 years of age (born June 4, 1950). She has a high school education. Following high school graduation, Jill worked as a cashier at Zayres department store. She was later promoted to office manager and then became the employee responsible for running the cash office, which she did for approximately 10 years until the parties' first child was born.

¶ 7 Melvin continues to reside at the former marital residence located on Lewis Road in Danville, Illinois. At the time of trial, he was 66 years of age (born January 2, 1945). Prior to marrying Jill, Melvin was employed as a license examiner at the Danville License Bureau and, thereafter, for the State of Illinois as a marshal for prisoners. In 1974, 1975, or 1976, Melvin and his uncle started their own construction company, Pri-den. Melvin's uncle later retired and Melvin bought out his share and renamed the business Mel Price Company.

¶ 8 Prior to their first child, Jill worked full-time at Zayres, maintained the household, took care of Melvin's daughter from a prior marriage, and worked part-time doing invoicing and answering phones for the construction business. Jill terminated her employment at Zayres one week before their first child was born (1978). Following the birth of their second child, Jill was primarily a homemaker, but she continued to work part-time for the construction business until 1984.

¶ 9 In 1984, Jill and Melvin incorporated the construction business as Mel Price Company, Inc. Jill and Melvin were each made 50% shareholders and named as officers and directors. Jill began working full-time in this business as well as continuing to run the household. During this same year, Jill and Melvin purchased another business, which they named Sand Valley Sand and Gravel, engaged in hauling and delivering sand and gravel. They incorporated this business in 2002, and Jill and Melvin were each made 50% shareholders and named as officers and directors. In 2002, 2003, or 2004, Jill and Melvin began operating a third business, Mel Price Containers, which leases storage containers to various businesses. Mel Price Containers is a sole proprietorship.

¶ 10 Jill continued working full-time for the parties' three businesses until June 2007 at which time she was receiving a yearly salary of $62,000. She also had company benefits, including health insurance, a company phone, a company vehicle, and a simplified employee pension plan matched by the business. Since ceasing to work at the parties' businesses, Jill has not attempted to secure employment elsewhere.

¶ 11 During their marriage, the parties accumulated several pieces of real estate. In 1997, they bought a condominium in Fort Myers, Florida, which was sold in 2001. In 1999, they purchased a second condominium in Pine Island, Florida, which was sold in 2002 or 2003. The proceeds from the sale of these two properties were invested in the parties' businesses. The parties also acquired real estate located on Glen Cove Drive in Fort Myers, Florida; on East Voorhees Street in Danville, Illinois; and what is referred to as the McCloud real estate located in Danville, Illinois. Further, Melvin owns a remainder interest in nonmarital real estate located on Bowman Avenue in Danville, Illinois.

¶ 12 On December 11, 2007, Jill filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. On June 23, 2008, Jill filed a petition for temporary relief. On August 27, 2008, the trial court entered a temporary relief order. By agreement of the parties, Melvin was ordered to make certain payments for Jill's benefit from the funds of Mel Price Containers. This order also provided Melvin was not to make any payments to himself from the parties' businesses unless he paid Jill the same.

¶ 13 In June and November 2009, Jill filed petitions alleging Melvin was in direct civil contempt of the trial court's temporary relief order. In September 2009, Melvin filed a petition to modify the temporary relief order, requesting he be compensated from the businesses as an employee. Following a February 2010 hearing on these petitions, the trial court found Melvin to be in contempt and issued a purge order in which Melvin was directed to open a personal checking account to pay his personal expenses and was prohibited from using the parties' business accounts or credit cards for personal expenses. This order also provided Melvin could take a salary of $2,000 per week from Sand Valley Sand and Gravel.

¶ 14 In May 2011, Jill filed a petition for a finding of dissipation of marital assets. On June 13, 2011, the trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage while reserving all other issues pending between the parties except for grounds of dissolution. A hearing was conducted between June 13, 2011, and June 24, 2011, on the pending issues during which the parties successfully negotiated some issues and the court heard evidence and the parties submitted financial affidavits and final written arguments on the remaining issues. On June 23, 2011, the trial court filed two separate orders: (1) a stipulation and order on partial division of personal property and (2) a stipulation and order on Jill's petition for finding of dissipation. These two separate orders summarized agreements reached between the parties during negotiations on June 14 and June 15, 2011. The court kept the remaining issues under advisement.

¶ 15 On July 20, 2011, Jill filed a petition for contribution to attorney fees and costs. On August 24, 2011, the trial court conducted a hearing on Jill's petition for contribution and took the matter under advisement.

¶ 16 On October 18, 2011, the trial court entered its supplemental dissolution judgment. This judgment ordered Melvin to pay Jill the following: (1) $7,500 per month in permanent maintenance; (2) $15,000 toward her attorney fees; and (3) an equalization payment of $330,275.10 within 90 days.

¶ 17 On November 17, 2011, Melvin filed a motion for rehearing, retrial, modification or vacatur of supplemental dissolution judgment. In this motion, Melvin contended the trial court erred in (1) accepting the personal property values proffered by Jill, (2) awarding the parties' Edward D. Jones account to Jill, (3) ruling he dissipated marital assets by paying attorney fees from the parties' businesses, (4) ordering a $330,275.10 equalization payment, (5) awarding Jill $7,500 per month in permanent maintenance, and (6) ordering him to pay $15,000 of Jill's attorney fees. Also on November 17, Jill filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the court modify its October 18, 2011, supplemental order. On January 25, 1012, the court denied both motions in their entirety.

¶ 18 Melvin appeals, arguing the trial court abused its discretion in (1) awarding Jill $7,500 per month in permanent maintenance; (2) ordering him to pay $15,000 of Jill's attorney fees; and (3) ordering a $330,275.10 equalization payment to be made within 90 days of the court's judgment.

¶ 19 II. ANALYSIS
¶ 20 A. Permanent Maintenance

¶ 21 Melvin argues the trial court erred in (1) calculating his annual income to be in excess of $300,000 and (2) awarding Jill $7,500 per month in permanent maintenance.

¶ 22 1. The Trial Court's Determination of Melvin's Net Income Was Not Against the Manifest Weight of the Evidence

¶ 23 Melvin first asserts the trial court erroneously determined his income to be in excess of $300,000 per year. Melvin argues the calculation used by the court in arriving at an income figure “in excess of $300,000 per year” is “nowhere to be found within the trial court's decision.”Further, Melvin contends the court failed to indicate whether the $300,000 figure represents his gross or net income....

5 cases
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2015
Shen v. Shen
"... ... 320, 914 N.E.2d 739 (2009) ; and In re Marriage of Price , 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 39, 369 Ill.Dec. 287, 986 N.E.2d 236. The court in Haken criticized the rule requiring a showing of inability of the petitioning spouse to pay/ability of the other spouse because the rule was not explicitly in the statute. The court stated that “[s]ome courts ... "
Document | Illinois Supreme Court – 2017
In re Heroy
"... ... ; see also In re Marriage of Anderson , 2015 IL App (3d) 140257, ¶¶ 19-20, 401 Ill.Dec. 22, 49 N.E.3d 410 (adopting Haken and rejecting the inability to pay standard); In re Marriage of Price , 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 39, 369 Ill.Dec. 287, 986 N.E.2d 236 (reaffirming Haken principle). ¶ 17 The Haken court relied in part on the passage of the Leveling of the Playing Field in Divorce Litigation Amendments (Leveling Amendments) to the Act as evidence that the legislature ... "
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2013
People v. Catron
"... ... People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234, 940 N.E.2d 1131, 1142 (2010). "An abuse of discretion occurs only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." In re Marriage of Price, 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 30, 986 N.E.2d 236. ¶ 63 Trial courts possess broad discretion when determining the admissibility of expert testimony. People v. Cardamone, 381 Ill. App. 3d 462, 500, 885 N.E.2d 1159, 1188 (2008). "Generally, an individual may testify as an expert if his or her ... "
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2015
Estate of Mcgrath v. McGrath (In re Re)
"... ... The cash rental price for purposes of determining an increase shall be determined by obtaining bids prior to January 1 of the farming year. Said bids shall be on the total tillable acres of the land in the Trust. Either party has until December 15 preced- Page 4 ing the January 1st to give notice to the other party in ... "
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2014
Marriage Mowen v. Mowen (In re Re)
"... ... App. 3d 519, 528, 656 N.E.2d 215, 222 (1995). ¶ 31 "The goal of apportionment of marital property is to attain an equitable distribution." In re Marriage of Price, 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 44, 986 N.E.2d 236. "An award of property in just proportions does not mean equal proportions, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding a larger share of the marital property to one party." In re Marriage of Walker , 386 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 1042, ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2015
Shen v. Shen
"... ... 320, 914 N.E.2d 739 (2009) ; and In re Marriage of Price , 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 39, 369 Ill.Dec. 287, 986 N.E.2d 236. The court in Haken criticized the rule requiring a showing of inability of the petitioning spouse to pay/ability of the other spouse because the rule was not explicitly in the statute. The court stated that “[s]ome courts ... "
Document | Illinois Supreme Court – 2017
In re Heroy
"... ... ; see also In re Marriage of Anderson , 2015 IL App (3d) 140257, ¶¶ 19-20, 401 Ill.Dec. 22, 49 N.E.3d 410 (adopting Haken and rejecting the inability to pay standard); In re Marriage of Price , 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 39, 369 Ill.Dec. 287, 986 N.E.2d 236 (reaffirming Haken principle). ¶ 17 The Haken court relied in part on the passage of the Leveling of the Playing Field in Divorce Litigation Amendments (Leveling Amendments) to the Act as evidence that the legislature ... "
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2013
People v. Catron
"... ... People v. Becker, 239 Ill. 2d 215, 234, 940 N.E.2d 1131, 1142 (2010). "An abuse of discretion occurs only where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court." In re Marriage of Price, 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 30, 986 N.E.2d 236. ¶ 63 Trial courts possess broad discretion when determining the admissibility of expert testimony. People v. Cardamone, 381 Ill. App. 3d 462, 500, 885 N.E.2d 1159, 1188 (2008). "Generally, an individual may testify as an expert if his or her ... "
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2015
Estate of Mcgrath v. McGrath (In re Re)
"... ... The cash rental price for purposes of determining an increase shall be determined by obtaining bids prior to January 1 of the farming year. Said bids shall be on the total tillable acres of the land in the Trust. Either party has until December 15 preced- Page 4 ing the January 1st to give notice to the other party in ... "
Document | Appellate Court of Illinois – 2014
Marriage Mowen v. Mowen (In re Re)
"... ... App. 3d 519, 528, 656 N.E.2d 215, 222 (1995). ¶ 31 "The goal of apportionment of marital property is to attain an equitable distribution." In re Marriage of Price, 2013 IL App (4th) 120155, ¶ 44, 986 N.E.2d 236. "An award of property in just proportions does not mean equal proportions, and a trial court does not abuse its discretion in awarding a larger share of the marital property to one party." In re Marriage of Walker , 386 Ill. App. 3d 1034, 1042, ... "

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex