Marriage Benecke v. Benecke (In re Re)

2015 IL App (4th) 141064-U

IN RE: MARRIAGE OF CHRISTINA BENECKE, Petitioner-Appellee, and MICHAEL BENECKE, Respondent-Appellant.

NO. 4-14-1064

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT

October 15, 2015

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 Circuit Court of McLean County

No. 12D63

Honorable Charles G. Reynard, Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court.

Presiding Justice Pope and Justice Harris concurred in the judgment.

ORDER

¶ 1 Held: The appellate court affirmed concluding the trial court's (1) maintenance order was not an abuse of discretion, (2) finding of contempt was not an abuse of discretion, and (3) determination that the condominium was marital property valued at $35,000 was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

¶ 2 In January 2012, petitioner, Christina Benecke, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage from respondent, Michael Benecke. Following the entry of a June 2012 bifurcated judgment of dissolution, the trial court, in June 2014, entered a supplemental judgment disposing of all remaining issues, including maintenance and property distribution. As part of its order, the court ordered Michael to pay Christina $2,000 per month in maintenance and determined a condominium purchased by Michael's father constituted marital property valued at $35,000. In June 2014, Michael filed a motion to reconsider. The following month, Christina filed a petition for adjudication of indirect civil contempt after Michael failed to pay the court-orderedmaintenance. In November 2014, the court denied Michael's motion to reconsider. Additionally, the court found Michael in contempt of court for failing to pay maintenance, ordered him to pay the accrued maintenance along with attorney fees, and scheduled the case for a hearing on sanctions.

¶ 3 Michael appeals, asserting the trial court erred by (1) awarding maintenance to Christina, (2) finding him in contempt for failing to pay maintenance, and (3) finding the condominium constituted marital property valued at $35,000. We affirm.

¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND

¶ 5 In January 1991, the Beneckes married. In January 2012, Christina filed a petition for dissolution of marriage. In June 2012, the trial court entered a bifurcated judgment granting the dissolution of marriage but reserving issues of property distribution and maintenance. In March 2014, the court held a hearing on all remaining issues. No transcript memorializes this hearing; however, the court certified a bystander's report created by the parties.

¶ 6 A. March 2014 Hearing

¶ 7 According to the bystander's report, Christina testified she was 46 years old and resided in a rental apartment in Bloomington, Illinois. During the course of the marriage, she was a stay-at-home mother and homemaker for 16 years. The parties' children are now adults. After 16 years as a homemaker, Christina began working part-time. Since April 2013, she maintained full-time employment as a marketing specialist, earning a salary of approximately $37,000. Her benefits included health insurance, which covered herself and one adult son, who was a full-time college student. She also paid the car-insurance premiums for both of their children.

¶ 8 In reviewing her financial affidavit, Christina testified her current salary was higher than the gross $2,879.60 monthly income reflected on her affidavit. Her net income was also slightly higher. Though her affidavit reflected monthly expenses exceeding $8,000 per month, she testified she no longer spent $745 on clothing for herself, her car payment had been reduced, and she no longer paid real-estate taxes or other maintenance on a home. She also continued to fund her 401(k). Christina testified her standard of living while married to Michael was very high, as the parties resided in a "nice" home and vacationed as often as six times per year. She also indicated her mother paid for travel during the marriage.

¶ 9 As to the condominium the parties shared in Lake of the Ozarks, Christina testified it was owned by Michael, Michael's brother, and her. She believed it had been given to all of them as a gift. The last time she visited the condominium, she was told Michael owed money toward it. According to Christina, the parties spent substantial marital funds furnishing, renovating, and improving the condominium. She placed a value of $25,000 on the parties' share of the condominium.

¶ 10 Michael testified he was 47 years old and lived in St. Louis, Missouri. He moved to the area to be closer to family and to reduce his living expenses. He was terminated from Olympus in June 2012, but he was actively looking for work. His father, Edward Benecke, was presently paying his living expenses, including real-estate taxes, utilities, a lease on a boat slip, rehabilitation, and the condominium, resulting in Michael owing his father $43,000. Until 2011, Michael was the regional sales director for medical equipment at Olympus, but the tsunami that hit Japan in 2011 destroyed the facility and inventory. His annual salary was $225,000. He then switched from a salaried position to a commission-based position within the company.

¶ 11 By April 2012, while the divorce was pending, Michael was drinking heavily. This resulted in his termination from Olympus in June 2012. He received unemployment benefits until January 2014. Following his termination, Michael was diagnosed with depression and alcoholism. He had attended an alcohol-rehabilitation program three times between the summer of 2012 and the March 2014 hearing date.

¶ 12 Edward testified he paid for the condominium, and Michael and his brother agreed to repay him. Although Michael's brother paid for his share—$35,000—Michael had not paid his half, nor did his father expect him to be able to repay him. Edward stated Christina was never on the deed, nor did he intend to gift the condominium to her.

¶ 13 B. The Trial Court's May 2014 Order

¶ 14 Following the March 2014 hearing, in May 2014, the trial court entered a written order disposing of the remaining maintenance and property issues. The items relevant to this appeal are as follows.

¶ 15 1. Maintenance

¶ 16 In order to divide the marital estate substantially equally, the trial court ordered Michael to pay Christina rehabilitative maintenance in the amount of $2,000 per month. In doing so, the court weighed the factors set forth in section 504(a) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2012)). The court noted the current disparity of income between the parties: Christina earned between $30,000 and $35,000, while Michael remained unemployed. However, the court found Michael's future earning capacity to be substantially greater than Christina's, as prior to his termination from Olympus, he was earning an average of $225,000 annually. Christina, on the other hand, hadbeen a homemaker for 16 years, which impaired her future earning capacity and permitted Michael an opportunity to further his career and increase his income.

¶ 17 The trial court found unconvincing Michael's statement that his alcoholism and depression resulted from the stress of his new position at Olympus, particularly where his termination coincided with the court's order granting the dissolution of marriage. The court reasoned, "Whether it was a consequence of willful effort on his part to defeat [Christina's] interests in the divorce proceedings or simply a self-destructive impulse on [Michael's] part, his loss of employment is a poster child for 'bad faith' on his part." The court found incredible his testimony regarding his inability to undertake financial responsibility and determined his "anemic" efforts to find employment demonstrated his bad faith and avoidance of financial responsibility. Michael testified to being in recovery, so he would have the ability to find new employment.

¶ 18 Based on Michael's testimony that he was in recovery for his alcoholism, and was therefore capable of earning $50,000 to $100,000 annually, the trial court imputed Michael had the potential to earn $100,000 per year. The court also determined Christina's reasonable need for spousal support was $2,000 per month. Because Michael had the imputed ability to pay maintenance, the court ordered him to pay Christina $2,000 in maintenance per month for a period of 72 months, at which time the court would review the order.

¶ 19 2. Condominium

¶ 20 As to the condominium, the court found the witnesses' testimony anomalous. The court's recollection of Christina's testimony was that Edward gifted the condominium to Michael, which would constitute a gift and, therefore, nonmarital property. However, at the same time, Christina asserted the condominium was marital property. Michael argued the condominiumwas a gift from Edward, yet he also maintained he acquired his property interest for consideration—a loan from Edward that remained unpaid. The court found Edward's testimony supported a finding that the condominium was not a gift, but a purchase, the loan for which he was no longer expected to pay.

¶ 21 The trial court found persuasive Edward's testimony that he never expected Michael to repay the loan, and therefore found the arrangement between Michael and Edward constituted a form of loan forgiveness. Accordingly, the court determined, "it appears most appropriate to characterize the property as marital property, valued at $35,000, and to assign the property to [Michael] due to the co-ownership with his brother, subject to no debt being owed." Because the court awarded physical possession of the property to Michael, it ordered Michael to pay $17,500 to Christina for equalization of the property.

¶ 22 C. Michael's Motion To Reconsider

¶ 23 In June 2014, Michael filed a motion to reconsider the trial court's order regarding the award of maintenance and the classification of...