In re Marriage of Penelope W. Malters and Edward H. Malters, 133 Ill. App. 3d 168

Summary

The Illinois Appellate Court reviewed property classification, valuation, and distribution issues arising from the dissolution of Edward and Penelope Malters' marriage, as well as a child-support order. The court upheld classification of the Brinker Road residence and Montana property as marital assets but found errors in the valuation and distribution of certain assets, including potential duplication involving the pension plans and Montana property. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. A residence acquired before marriage may nevertheless be marital property when it was purchased in contemplation of marriage as the intended family home and the parties' contributions during the marriage produced most of the property's equity. The trial court properly classified the Brinker Road residence as marital property.
2. Property acquired during marriage remains presumptively marital, and a down payment partially derived from refinancing allegedly nonmarital property is insufficient by itself to rebut that presumption when mortgage payments and other expenses were not shown to have been paid with nonmarital funds. The trial court properly classified the Montana property as marital property.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by valuing and distributing marital assets without adequate evidentiary support and without properly considering the parties' debts, the possible duplication of the Montana property's value in the pension-plan valuation, and the value of Edward's Berkeley three-flat. The valuation and distribution orders had to be reversed and remanded for a new trial.
4. In distributing marital assets, the trial court must consider the tax consequences of the property division on the parties' respective economic circumstances. The trial court erred by apparently failing to consider the potential tax consequences of transferring the Montana property from the pension plans.
5. Because property division is a factor in determining child support, reversal of the property distribution required redetermination of the child-support award. On remand, the trial court was required to hold a hearing concerning support for the parties' daughter and consider the factors relevant under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Brinker Road residence, acquired before the marriage but purchased in contemplation of marriage and used as the family home, was marital property.
2. Whether the Montana property, acquired during the marriage with a down payment partially derived from refinancing allegedly nonmarital property, was marital property.
3. Whether the trial court improperly valued and distributed the parties' marital assets.
4. Whether the trial court was required to consider Edward's indebtedness, the alleged dissipation of pension funds, and the tax consequences of transferring the Montana property.
5. Whether the child-support award had to be redetermined, including through a hearing, after reversal of the property valuation and distribution.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded