750 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/503

Section 503(k) permits the court to value property as of the trial date or another date agreed by the parties or chosen within the court’s discretion.

In re Marriage of Bornhofen · filed 2023-12-19(k)

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in valuing iTouch without Louise’s alleged new evidence. “The date of valuation for the purposes of division of assets shall be the date of trial or such other date as agreed by the parties or ordered by the court, within its discretion.” (Emphases added.) 750 ILCS 5/503(k) (West 2020). ... The use of that date of valuation excluding Louise’s proffered evidence was proper.

Under section 503(d), an interest earned through marital assets and a spouse’s efforts during marriage may be marital property even if the spouse receives it after divorce.

In re Marriage of Little · filed 2014-12-22(d)

Donald argues that, under section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2012)), which requires the trial court to divide the marital estate in “just proportions,” he has a claim to Cheri’s interest in Hydro-Master Parts. ... We find that Donald’s allegations were sufficient to allege the existence of a meritorious claim. Donald alleged that, based on Cheri’s allegations in her complaint, Hydro-Master Parts ... was created during the parties’ marriage with marital assets and Cheri’s efforts, and Cheri was to receive a 40% ownership interest upon completion of the divorce proceedings. Taking this allegation as true, it is sufficient to establish a meritorious claim.

Section 503(d)(2)'s notice requirement for dissipation claims applies only to dissolution petitions filed on or after January 1, 2013.

In re Marriage of Daily · filed 2021-08-17(d)(2)

The notice requirements of section 503(d)(2) were added by Public Act 97- 0941 (Pub. Act 97-0941, § 5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2013)) and made applicable only to petitions for dissolution filed on or after January 1, 2013.

Section 503(d)(2)(iv)’s three-year limit does not bar a dissipation claim for later spending merely because a spouse knew the funds had been transferred between presumably marital accounts.

In re Marriage of Calk · filed 2020-10-19(d)(2)(iv)

While Donna might have obtained knowledge on September 3, 2014, as to the status and destination of the $3.7 million withdrawn from Northern Trust x7803, we fail to see how knowing of monetary transfers between accounts—all of which were presumably marital accounts—would start the clock on dissipation claims related to the use of those funds in 2016 and 2017.

Section 5/503(d)(2)(i) permits a dissipation notice filed after trial begins if it meets the statutory deadline and the other party has an opportunity to refute the claim.

In re Marriage of Hamilton · filed 2019-08-07(d)(2)(i)

The relevant statute provides that a court may consider the dissipation of assets only on the condition that “a notice of intent to claim dissipation shall be given no later than 60 days before trial or 30 days after discovery closes, whichever is later.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(i) (West 2014). ... The statute does not expressly require that a notice of intent be filed before the start of trial. ... Because Mary filed her notice of intent within the time period mandated by the statute and Don had the opportunity to refute the claim, her notice was timely and the question of dissipation was properly considered by the court.

Section 5/503(d)(2)(i) permits a dissipation notice after trial begins if it meets the statutory deadline and the other spouse has a fair opportunity to respond.

In re Marriage of Hamilton · filed 2019-06-05(d)(2)(i)

The statute does not expressly require that a notice of intent be filed before the start of trial. ... Because Mary filed her notice of intent within the time period mandated by the statute and Don had the opportunity to refute the claim, her notice was timely and the question of dissipation was properly considered by the court.

Section 503(d)(2) requires courts assessing dissipation to consider when the marriage began undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown, rather than when it finished breaking down.

In re Marriage of Larocque · filed 2018-05-31(d)(2)

It is error for a court to assess dissipation by looking to “when the parties’ marriage had completed the process of breaking down,” rather than when the marriage “began undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Holthaus, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 375. However, contrary to what Janet proposes, the record here, when considered as a whole, confirms that the trial court applied the correct legal standard.

Section 503(d)(2) requires courts assessing dissipation to consider when the marriage began undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown, rather than when the breakdown was complete.

In re Marriage of Larocque · filed 2018-09-26(d)(2)

It is error for a court to assess dissipation by looking to “when the parties’ marriage had completed the process of breaking down,” rather than when the marriage “began undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.” Holthaus, 387 Ill. App. 3d at 375. However, contrary to what Janet proposes, the record here, when considered as a whole, confirms that the trial court applied the correct legal standard.

Section 503(d) allows a finding of dissipation without proof that a spouse intended to diminish the marital estate.

In re Marriage of Schneeweis · filed 2016-06-22(d)

However, the dissipating spouse’s intent is not dispositive in ... this determination.

Section 503(d)(1) shifts the burden to a spouse who takes exclusive control of marital savings to show by clear and convincing evidence how the funds were spent when dissipation is alleged.

In Re Marriage of Jerome and Martinez · filed 1994-01-03(d)(1)

Clearly, once petitioner established that respondent had obtained exclusive control over the savings, the burden shifted to respondent to show by clear and convincing evidence specifically how the funds were spent.

Section 503(d)(1) requires a court to account for the destruction of marital property, including photographs, by restoring it if possible or determining damages and considering the loss in the property division.

In Re Marriage of Ferkel · filed 1994-04-21(d)(1)

Because the parties in a dissolution owe a duty not to dissipate marital assets, we cannot condone the dissipation or destruction of any marital assets or property, even photographs. We believe that it was error for the trial court to grant Ted no relief merely because it could place no economic value on the destroyed marital photographs. Clearly, the destroyed marital property could be recovered if Vera retained the negatives and made copies of the destroyed photographs. On the other hand, if the marital property cannot be restored, the trial court at a minimum should have determined damages and accordingly considered this issue in the distribution of the marital property.

Section 5/503(d) allows dissipation to affect property division, but necessary living expenses do not establish dissipation without evidence of improper spending.

In Re Marriage of Hahin · filed 1994-08-23(d)

We believe the trial court abused its discretion in finding dissipation sua sponte because the two-day trial produced no clear evidence that the husband spent more than reasonable sums to maintain the Springfield home, which was clearly required for his job and which was agreed to by the wife in advance.

Section 503(d)(2) requires a court dividing marital property to consider dissipation of marital assets; failure to address supported dissipation can be an abuse of discretion.

In Re Marriage of Charles · filed 1996-10-24(d)(2)

Whether a given course of conduct constitutes dissipation within the meaning of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 1992)) depends upon the facts of the particular case. ... The failure of the trial court to address the question of dissipation amounted to an abuse of discretion requiring reversal.

Section 503(d)(2) requires courts distributing marital property to consider each spouse’s dissipation of marital or non-marital property.

In re Marriage of DiFatta · filed 1999-07-29(d)(2)

Under section 503(d)(2) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 1996)), in determining how to distribute the marital property, the court is required to consider the dissipation by each party of marital or non-marital property.

Section 503(d)(2) permits a finding of dissipation when a marriage is undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown, even before the spouses separate or file for divorce.

In Re Marriage of Zweig · filed 2003-10-17(d)(2)

An irreconcilable breakdown of a marriage does not necessarily require a separation or a filing for divorce by one spouse.

Section 503(d)(2) permits a finding of dissipation even when the spouse who spent marital assets received no personal benefit.

In Re Marriage of Awan · filed 2009-02-17(d)(2)

We begin by stating that the trial court's finding that Awan dissipated marital assets is appropriate even though Awan did not use the funds for himself.

Section 503(d)(2) requires courts to consider dissipation when dividing marital property, but child support payments must be excluded from a dissipation award.

In Re Marriage of Sanfratello · filed 2009-07-27(d)(2)

However, there is clear and convincing evidence that Michael paid child support during the dissolution proceedings, which must be excluded from a dissipation award.

Section 503(d)(2) permits a court to consider dissipation of marital assets on its own initiative, regardless of the parties' pleadings.

Kic v. Bianucci · filed 2011-12-13(d)(2)

Furthermore, dissipation may be considered by the trial court sua sponte regardless of the pleadings of either party. In re Marriage of Sanfratello, 393 Ill. App.3d 641, 653, 332 Ill.Dec. 787, 913 N.E.2d 1077, 1089 (2009); 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 2010).

Section 503(d)(2) allows a court to consider dissipation when dividing marital property, beginning when the marriage starts undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.

In Re Marriage of Holthaus · filed 2008-11-18(d)(2)

As previously discussed, dissipation is to be calculated from the time the parties’ marriage begins to undergo an irreconcilable breakdown, not from a date after which it is irreconcilably broken.

Section 503(d)(2) allows dissipation to be calculated from when a marriage begins undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown.

In re Marriage of Holtaus · filed 2008-11-18(d)(2)

As previously discussed, dissipation is to be calculated from the time the parties' marriage begins to undergo an irreconcilable breakdown, not from a date after which it is irreconcilably broken.

Section 503(d)(2) requires courts to consider each spouse’s dissipation when dividing marital property; an error involving a trivial amount relative to the marital estate may be harmless.

In re Marriage of D'Attomo · filed 2012-09-26(d)(2)

In allocating property pursuant to section 503 of the Act, the trial court must consider any “dissipation by each party.” ... Errors that are trivial in relationship to the value of the marital estate may be deemed harmless. ... Such is precisely the case here.

Section 503(d)(2) permits a court dividing marital property to consider supervised visitation costs caused by a spouse’s false abuse allegations as dissipation.

In re Marriage of Patel · filed 2013-06-28(d)(2)

In dividing the marital estate, the trial court may take into account a spouse’s dissipation of marital assets. 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 2008). ... Seversen does not permit a party to avoid a finding of dissipation simply because the funds which were expended were necessitated by a court order. ... The evidence established that, but for Amy’s false allegations against Sunil, the supervised visitation fees would not have been incurred. Therefore, the trial court’s finding that Amy dissipated marital assets was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 503(d)(2)'s notice of intent to claim dissipation requirement did not apply to a trial held before the provision took effect in January 2013.

In re Marriage of Brown · filed 2015-06-15(d)(2)

Kerri asserts that Jeffrey failed to file a notice of intent to claim dissipation as required under section 503(d)(2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 2012)). However, the notice of intent to claim dissipation ... provision was added by Public Act 97-0941, which did not become effective until January 2013, after the trial in this matter.

Section 503(d)(2) requires a court allocating property to consider any dissipation by the parties.

In re Marriage of Kyle D.W. · filed 2022-10-31(d)(2)

In allocating property pursuant to section 503, the trial court must consider any dissipation by the parties.

Section 503(d)(2) requires a court to consider a properly raised dissipation claim when dividing marital property.

In re Marriage of Yearman · filed 2023-08-14(d)(2)

In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, if a claim for dissipation has been properly raised and presented, the trial court must consider that claim in dividing the marital property. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 2016); In re Marriage of Brown, 2015 IL App (5th) 140062, ¶ 71. ... In the present case, after reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not err in its ruling on dissipation.

Section 503(d)(2)(i) permits notice of a dissipation claim up to 30 days after discovery closes when that deadline is later than 60 days before trial.

In re Marriage of Hubble · filed 2022-01-12(d)(2)(i)

Section 503(d)(2)(i) of the Act provides that “a notice of intent to claim dissipation shall be given no later than 60 days before trial or 30 days after discovery closes, whichever is later[.]” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2)(i) (West 2018). ... Given that discovery was ongoing, we conclude petitioner’s dissipation claim was timely.

Section 503(d)(2)(ii) requires a dissipation claimant to identify the property and when the dissipation occurred; an uncorroborated estimate does not establish a prima facie claim.

In re Marriage of Yvanauskas · filed 2022-02-08(d)(2)(ii)

Without further corroboration of the claimed dissipation of the alleged 401(k) plan under section 503(d)(2)(ii), it is not clearly apparent, even in the context of a prima facie case, the circuit court should have reached the opposite conclusion.

Section 503(d)(ii) allows a dissipation notice to identify categories and types of property without stating specific dollar amounts.

In re Marriage of Yazeji · filed 2022-10-05(d)(ii)

Section 503(d)(ii) does not require the movant to include specific dollar amounts.

A spouse claiming dissipation must give notice identifying the property, when the dissipation occurred, and when the marriage began breaking down; without evidence of that notice, the claim cannot be considered.

Reinbold v. Schertz · filed 2022-11-17(d)(2)

Importantly, the Illinois statute governing the issue conditions the availability of such a claim upon notice being given of a party’s intent to claim dissipation that identifies the property said to be dissipated, the period during which dissipation occurred, and when the marriage began undergoing an irretrievable breakdown. 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2). ... Thus, Mrs. Schertz failed to present the minimum evidence necessary for this Court to even consider the issue of dissipation.

A notice of intent to claim dissipation must meet the statutory timing requirement and give the opposing spouse a fair opportunity to refute the claim.

In re Marriage of Majewski · filed 2023-02-28(d)(2)(i)

Accordingly, because the legislature has not amended section 503(d) in light of the Hamilton court’s findings, we presume that the legislature acquiesced in those findings, bolstering our conclusion that, in order to be considered timely, a notice of intent to claim dissipation must comply with section 503(d)(2)(i) and meet the fairness test outlined in Hamilton.

Paying an existing marital debt after the marriage breaks down does not constitute dissipation when the debt was incurred before the breakdown.

In re Marriage of Gerber · filed 2024-06-10(d)(2)

Had Lawrence not paid those expenses, he would likely have wasted more money by having to pay fees, interest, and damages associated with those debts he incurred. As such, Lawrence did not dissipate the marital estate by paying the attorney fees he incurred before the marital breakdown after that breakdown.

Section 503(d)(2) requires a court to consider a properly raised dissipation claim when dividing marital property, but an award cannot stand when the claimant failed to establish a prima facie case.

In re Marriage of Padilla · filed 2026-02-26(d)(2)

In a dissolution of marriage proceeding, if a claim for dissipation has been properly raised and presented, the trial court must consider that claim in dividing the marital property. ... Because the trial court had so found, it was improper for the trial court to have awarded that money to Anna for funds that Raul had allegedly given to his parents.

Section 503(d)(2)(i) requires notice of a dissipation claim by the later of 60 days before trial or 30 days after discovery closes; untimely notice makes the claim procedurally improper.

In re Marriage of Tarbouche · filed 2023-12-29(d)(2)(i)

Section 503(d)(2) delineates express procedural requirements to claim dissipation of assets, specifically the filing of a: (i) notice of intent to claim dissipation, which “shall be given no later than 60 days before trial or 30 days after discovery closes, whichever is later,” and must be accompanied by a filed certificate or service of the notice. ... Thus, we find that Nawara’s notice for dissipation of assets was untimely and therefore procedurally improper.

Section 503(d)(2) allows substantial withdrawals of marital funds to establish a prima facie case of dissipation, shifting the burden to the withdrawing spouse to account for how the funds were spent.

In re Marriage of Robbins · filed 2024-09-26(d)(2)

Rather, she bore the initial burden of making a prima facie showing of dissipation, which she did by evidencing Edward’s depletion of the brokerage account, so as to shift the burden to Edward to demonstrate with clear and specific evidence how the funds were spent.

Section 503(d)(2) allows a prima facie dissipation claim based on expenditures for one spouse’s benefit; the spouse charged with dissipation must then explain the transactions with clear and specific evidence.

In re Marriage of Beltran · filed 2025-02-25(d)(2)

For these reasons, Caitlin presented prima facie evidence that the Centurion charges listed on Exhibit A were incurred for Jacob’s benefit and constituted dissipation of the marital estate. ... That is why, after Caitlin made a prima facie showing, it was Jacob who was required to explain the credit card transactions with clear and specific evidence. Here, the trial court reasonably determined that Jacob failed to do so, given Jacob’s evasive and inconsistent explanations.

Section 503(d)(2) permits a court to consider a spouse’s refusal of an available severance payment as dissipation of marital property when the refusal lacks a credible explanation.

In re Marriage of Lebovich · filed 2025-09-30(d)(2)

In dividing marital property, a circuit court may consider the “dissipation by each party of the marital property.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(2) (West 2020). ... Lenny claims his conduct amounted to refusing funds, not spending funds already in the marital estate. This is a distinction without a difference in this context.

Section 503(d)(2) allows a court to count dissipated assets against a spouse’s share and to consider that dissipation when deciding a just division of marital property.

In re Marriage of Seyl · filed 2026-06-02(d)(2)

Preliminarily, it appears that Justin’s reliance on Partyka supports the court’s approach here, where, in its discretion, it incorporated its dissipation findings by considering Justin’s $838,256 in dissipation expenditures as an advance on his ultimate share of the marital assets. ... Indeed, Justin’s view that this factor favors neither party is illogical; the Act provides these factors for the court to assess what division would be “just” and, so, the party who dissipated and reduced the value of the estate would presumably find those actions reduced his or her claim to a greater share of the estate.

Section 503(d)(2)(ii) requires a dissipation notice to identify when the marriage began undergoing an irretrievable breakdown; a notice that omits this information cannot support a dissipation claim at trial.

In re Marriage of May · filed 2024-12-23(d)(2)(ii)

As such, we interpret all provisions of the dissipation statute to be mandatory in nature, meaning that all elements of a prima facie claim for dissipation as outlined in section 503(d)(2) must be met prior to trial.

Section 503(d)(2)(i) requires timely notice of intent to claim dissipation; without it, the court cannot consider a dissipation claim.

In re Marriage of Kelly · filed 2026-02-24(d)(2)(i)

Thus, if the notice of intent to claim dissipation was not timely filed which would place the other party on notice, then the court cannot consider a claim of dissipation.

Section 503(d) allows a claim to divide a business interest allegedly earned through marital assets and efforts during marriage, even if the interest was to be received after divorce.

In re Marriage of Little · filed 2015-03-02(d)

As Donald notes, had Cheri worked at a job during the marriage but received her paycheck only after the divorce, the money earned during the marriage would be a marital asset. ... As framed by Donald’s petition, the present case is no different. Further, although Cheri argues that Donald waived his interest in Hydro-Master Parts, the MSA does not mention any such interest. Thus, Donald has stated a claim to the alleged marital asset.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions.

In re Marriage of Arjmand · filed 2013-10-28(d)

Neither the setting of child support nor the division of assets complied with statutory requirements. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2010) (requiring that marital property be divided in “just proportions”); 750 ILCS 5/505(a) (West 2010) (requiring that child support for two children be equal to 28% of the supporting party’s net income and that the trial court give reasons for any variance from this guideline).

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions; a court that otherwise divides fixed-value assets equally must explain an offset awarding one spouse the full value of a marital asset.

In re Marriage of Christianson · filed 2026-06-03(d)

The disposition of property in a dissolution of marriage proceeding is governed by section 503 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503 (West 2022)). ... After the trial court classifies the property as marital or nonmarital, it awards each spouse his or her nonmarital property and divides the marital property into just proportions. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2022). ... In light of the record on appeal and the remainder of the trial court’s judgment, we find that the court erred by awarding Tracy the full value of the law firm partnership interest. Accordingly, we vacate this portion of the judgment and remand with directions for the trial court to award Tracy the sum of $16,500 to offset 50% of the value of the law firm partnership, or in the alternative to articulate its decision to award the full value to Tracy.

Section 503(d) requires a court dividing marital property to account for one spouse’s sole care and financial support of the parties’ disabled adult child.

In re Marraige of Thomas · filed 2026-06-16(d)

Section 503(d) of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act provides several factors to consider in dividing marital property. ... But the court abused its discretion in the division it chose. We agree with Regina that the court did not adequately account for the fact that Regina is the sole caregiver and financial support for Junior, their adult disabled son.

Section 5/503(a) requires factual findings supporting a property award but does not require the trial court to list or discuss each statutory factor.

In re Marriage of Gregg · filed 2021-09-14(a)

Although the statute requires the trial court to make factual findings supporting its award, it does not require that trial court to list or discuss each statutory factor.

Section 503(d) bars consideration of marital misconduct when dividing marital assets, but does not bar consideration of damage one spouse caused to the other’s property.

In re Marriage of Bonanno Georgiades · filed 2021-06-25(d)

This provision does not apply because (1) Josephine’s 1981 Corvette was not a marital asset, (2) the trial court may still consider the decrease in value that one spouse caused to the other’s property (id. § 503(d)(1)), and (3) a spouse “may sue the other for a tort committed during the marriage” (750 ILCS 65/1 (West 2018)).

Section 5/503(d) requires marital property, including debt, to be divided in just proportions after considering all relevant factors.

In re Marriage of Heist · filed 2020-11-17(d)

The trial court “shall divide the marital property [including debt] *** in just proportions considering all relevant factors.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2014). ... We hold that the trial court’s allocation of the marital property was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 503(d)(8) and (11) allow a court dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s health, income, employability, needs, and opportunity to acquire future assets and income.

In re Marriage of Lawless · filed 2020-06-29(d)(8), (d)(11)

Section 503(d)(8) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(8) (West 2018)) allows a court, in dividing marital property, to consider the “the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and needs of each of the parties.” The Act further allows the court to consider “the reasonable opportunity of each spouse for future acquisition of capital assets and income.” Id. § 503(d)(11). ¶ 55 Here, we cannot find that the trial court erred in considering these factors and thus its findings were not an abuse of discretion.

Section 503 permits a court to use a parent’s share of marital assets to provide child support when the parent has no current income.

In re Marriage of Are · filed 2020-04-23(g)

Here, we find the trial court’s decision to order an offset from the marital assets it awarded to respondent for child support purposes was authorized by the Act and not contrary to its initial “zero dollar order.” Under section 505 of the Act, an award of child support is based on the income of the parties; however, section 503 of the Act contemplates that the court may utilize marital or nonmarital assets for support purposes.

Under section 503(d), factual findings on property division factors are reviewed for manifest weight of the evidence, and the ultimate property division is reviewed for abuse of discretion.

In re Marriage of Bengoa · filed 2019-10-22(d)

We apply the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard to the court’s factual findings for each section 503(d) factor upon which the court based its decision, and we apply an abuse of discretion standard for the court’s ultimate property disposition.

Section 503(d) requires the marital estate to be divided in just proportions, considering factors such as each spouse’s contributions and economic circumstances.

In re Marriage of Evanoff · filed 2016-08-29(d)

Under section 503(d) of the Act, the trial court must divide the marital estate in just proportions. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2012). ... We find this division of marital assets to be fair and equitable. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in making its award.

Section 503(d) requires marital property and liabilities to be divided in just proportions, taking the parties' circumstances into account.

In Re Marriage of Dunseth · filed 1994-04-14(d)

Section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1992)) requires the trial court to divide the marital property in just proportions. ... The trial court must enter a new order dividing assets and liabilities more equally between the parties.

Section 503(d) permits an unequal division of marital property when the court divides it in just proportions.

In re Marriage of Adan · filed 1994-05-16(d)

The division of marital property in "just proportions” does not necessitate mathematical equality; an unequal division may be made where the court has properly applied the statute.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property based on relevant factors, but the trial court need not make specific findings explaining its award.

In Re Marriage of Swanson · filed 1995-10-05(d)

The trial court must divide marital property in "just proportions” considering relevant factors listed in section 503(d) of the Act. (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1992); In re Marriage of Schmidt (1993), 242 Ill. App. 3d 961, 966, 610 N.E.2d 673, 677.) Although the trial court must consider all relevant statutory factors, it need not make specific findings as to the reasons for its award.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property based on relevant factors, but it does not require equal shares.

In Re Marriage of Koberlein · filed 1996-06-26(d)

Section 503 of the Act requires the trial court to divide marital property in "just proportions,” considering the following relevant factors: ... While the touchstone of proper apportionment is whether the division is equitable in nature, a just division does not require mathematical equality, given the range of factors to be considered by the trial court.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions.

In re Marriage of Fields · filed 1996-10-03(d)

Section 503(d) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1994)) requires the trial court to divide the marital property in just proportions. ... Based upon our review of the record, we conclude that the trial did not clearly abuse its discretion in its property division and debt allocation.

Section 503 requires a spouse allocated a marital debt to pay it without exposing the other spouse to liability.

In Re Marriage of Davis · filed 1997-10-21

Disposition of property is governed by section 503 of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503 (West 1996)) and, although the Act does not specifically address the allocation of debts, "[i]t is well settled that marital debts as well as marital assets must be distributed equitably.” In re Marriage of Lees, 224 Ill. App. 3d 691, 693, 587 N.E.2d 17, 19 (1992). If allocation of debts under the Act has any meaning at all, it must mean that the party allocated the debt is expected to pay it and to do so in a manner that does not expose the other party to liability on the debt.

Section 503(d)(1) allows a court to count indirect contributions to preserving marital property, including nonmarital funds used to pay property taxes through a joint account.

In Re Marriage of Marriott · filed 1994-06-29(d)(1)

The relevant statutory inquiry is the extent to which Robert contributed to the preservation of the property. (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(1) (West 1992).) We do not read the statute necessarily to exclude indirect contributions. To the extent Robert earmarked nonmarital funds for the payment of taxes on the marital residence and the funds were actually used for that purpose, the trial court could properly conclude that Robert contributed to the preservation of the property notwithstanding the temporary intermediate character of the funds as marital property.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property that accounts for the full duration of the marriage, even when the spouses lived apart.

In Re Marriage of Morris · filed 1994-09-15(d)

As to the fourth factor, the duration of the marriage, the trial court must take into account that the couple was married in excess of 20 years. To recognize only the two years that the couple lived together, as the trial court did in apportioning the pension and denying apportionment of the lottery proceeds, is to view the physical separation as a "common law divorce." As we have already stated, this is not permissible.

Section 503(d)(12) requires a court dividing marital property to consider the tax consequences and to hear relevant evidence when a party raises substantial tax concerns.

In re Marriage Lakin · filed 1996-03-12(d)(12)

The trial court, by refusing to grant petitioner the opportunity to present evidence as to the necessity of inserting specific language in the judgment to address the tax concerns, failed to meet its statutory mandate to consider the tax implications of the division of marital property.

Section 503(d) permits a court to consider differences in the spouses’ net income and the absence of maintenance when dividing marital property and debts.

In Re Marriage of Ward · filed 1996-06-28(d)

The record reveals that the trial court based its distribution of the marital property on the factors set forth in section 503(d) of the Act. ... In light of the disparity in net income between the parties and the fact that respondent did not have to pay maintenance to petitioner, we do not believe that the trial court abused its discretion in apportioning the property and debts.

Section 503(d)(5) makes the desirability of awarding the family home to the custodial parent one factor in dividing marital property.

In Re Marriage of Minear · filed 1997-05-08(d)(5)

Yet this factor is but one of many a trial court must consider in apportioning marital property. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1994). Here, it was entirely reasonable for the trial court to award Robert the service station, the major income-producing asset of the marriage, so he could continue to run it.

Section 503(d)(8) requires courts to consider each spouse's health when dividing marital property; poor health can support a larger share for that spouse.

In Re Marriage of Bonneau · filed 1998-02-09(d)(8)

Respondent correctly notes that in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage the trial court shall divide marital property in just proportions while considering all relevant factors, including the health of each of the parties. 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(8) (West 1996). ... In neither instance, however, is a party's poor health used against that party. Instead, a party's poor health results in an increased share of the marital assets or an increased maintenance award.

Section 503(d) calls for an equitable division of marital property, not a mathematically equal one.

In Re Marriage of Drury · filed 2000-10-31(d)

The trial court is not required by the statute to divide the property with mathematical equality.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions, which need not be equal shares.

In Re Marriage of Walker · filed 1999-04-15(d)

Section 503(d) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1996)) requires the trial court to divide the marital property in just proportions. ... Even if Judith received only about 40% of the marital interest in the pension, the trial court’s decision was within its discretion. “Just proportions” does not mean mathematically equal shares.

Section 503(d) allows a court dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s age, employability, and opportunity to acquire assets in the future.

In Re Marriage of Abma · filed 1999-11-01(d)

Taken in context, the court’s observations demonstrate the court’s appropriate consideration of the relevant statutory factors, such as the respective ages of the parties, their employability and the opportunity of each spouse to acquire assets in the future. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1996).

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions under the parties’ circumstances; the division need not be mathematically equal.

In Re Marriage of Bielawski · filed 2002-02-20(d)

Marital property must be divided in “just proportions” in light of the relevant circumstances of the parties. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1996). “Just proportions” does not necessarily mean mathematical equality, but the distribution must be equitable under the circumstances.

Section 503(d) permits an unequal division of marital property when the court considers the relevant factors and divides the property in just proportions.

In re Marriage of Gaumer · filed 2003-01-29(d)

We find that the trial court's disposition of the parties' property is in just proportions considering all relevant factors.

Section 503(d) permits a court dividing marital property to consider child custody and the family home’s role in providing income when deciding which spouse receives the home.

In re Marriage of Craig · filed 2002-01-24(d)(5), (d)(9)

A court shall divide the marital property without regard to marital misconduct in just proportions, considering all relevant factors, including the desirability of awarding the family home to the spouse having custody of the children. 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(5), (d)(9) (West 1998). We do not find that the trial court erred in awarding the marital residence to Stephanie, given that she was awarded custody of Roman. Moreover, Stephanie operates a day care facility, licensed by the Department of Children and Family Services, from the home, garnering necessary familial income while providing for Roman’s needs.

Section 503(d) permits a court to award future income from growing crops produced during the marriage to the spouse assigned the associated farming debt when the overall division remains in just proportions.

In Re Marriage of Bowlby · filed 2003-04-25(d)

After Matthew is awarded the entirety of the 2001 growing crop, the distribution remains equitable in nature and in just proportions. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2000).

Section 503(d) permits an unequal division of marital property and debt when relevant factors make the allocation just.

In Re Marriage of Thornley · filed 2005-11-09(d)

Section 503(d) of the Dissolution Act requires a trial court to divide marital property “in just proportions considering all relevant factors.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2004). ... The court’s apportionment of marital property and debt admittedly favors Stephanie, but it did not abuse its discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the court’s judgment distributing marital property and debt.

Section 503(d) requires courts to consider its listed factors when dividing marital property.

In Re Marriage of Hubbs · filed 2006-02-01(d)

When dividing marital property, a circuit court is to consider the evidence in light of several factors set forth in section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2004)). ... We point out that an award of 47% to Mark and 53% to Peggy is not too far from a nearly equal division of marital property, and in light of the relevant statutory factors, we cannot conclude that the circuit court abused its discretion in dividing the marital property.

Section 503(d) directs courts to consider factors including each spouse’s property, economic circumstances, health, and opportunity to acquire assets and income when dividing marital property.

In Re Marriage of Joynt · filed 2007-08-16(d)

The court adequately considered all the factors of section 503(d) in making its distribution of marital property, including the value of the nonmarital assets, Theresa’s health, and her relative inability to acquire capital assets and income. In light of these factors, we find that the court did not abuse its discretion in awarding Theresa 60% of the marital estate.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property that accounts for the cost of a survivor annuity benefiting one spouse.

In Re Marriage of Sawicki · filed 2004-03-18(d)

A division of the marital property without reference to Susan’s interest in the survivor annuity is not a division “in just proportions.” See 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2000). Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to reduce the portion of Todd’s disability pension awarded to Susan by the cost of that annuity.

Section 503(d)(3) permits a court dividing marital property to consider veterans’ disability benefits already received and accumulated as nonmarital property assigned to that spouse.

In Re Marriage of Wojcik · filed 2005-11-04(d)(3)

In accordance with section 503(d)(3), Paul’s accumulation of disability benefits, as nonmarital property set aside to him, was a proper factor for the trial court to consider in the division of the marital property.

Section 503(d)(12) requires courts to consider tax consequences when dividing marital property, but does not justify reducing an asset’s value for taxes on a speculative future liquidation.

In Re Marriage of Alexander · filed 2006-09-07(d)(12)

Section 503(d)(12) of the Act provides that the trial court shall divide the marital property in just proportions, considering relevant factors including “the tax consequences of the property division upon the respective economic circumstances of the parties.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(12) (West 2004). ... In light of the precedent set forth above, we believe that the circuit court abused its discretion in its valuation of the Vanguard funds. The circuit court should not have reduced the value of the funds by 21%.

Section 503(d)(1) permits consideration of how a spouse's drug use affected that spouse's contributions as a homemaker and to the family unit.

Weisman v. Schiller, Ducanto and Fleck, LTD. · filed 2006-09-20(d)(1)

As such, the evidence of her drug use was relevant in assessing the effect such use had on her contributions as a homemaker and to ... the family unit (750 ILCS 5/503(d)(1) (West 2004)).

Pension benefits accrued during marriage are marital property, and a court may divide an unmatured pension by awarding a spouse a share of the benefits paid after retirement.

In Re Marriage of Richardson · filed 2008-03-04(b)(2)

The court did not abuse its discretion in applying the widely accepted reserved jurisdiction approach and awarding respondent $1,112.67 per month as her 50% share of the marital portion of petitioner’s pension benefit.

Section 503(d) requires courts to divide marital property in just proportions after considering all relevant factors, including each spouse’s contributions and health.

In Re Marriage of Oden · filed 2009-09-21(d)

A court is required to divide marital property “in just proportions” considering all relevant factors, including (1) the contribution of each party to the acquisition and preservation of marital property; (2) dissipation; (3) the value of property assigned to each party; (4) the duration of the marriage; (5) the age, health, vocational skills, and employability of each party; and (6) whether maintenance is awarded. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2006). ... Thus, we find no abuse in the court’s award of the additional $50,000 to Edward from the Salin account.

Section 503(d) requires a court to consider the relevant statutory factors and divide marital property in just proportions, rather than divide it equally as a matter of course.

In re Marriage of Smith · filed 2012-12-18(d)

These comments indicate to us that the trial court did not review the relevant factors under section 503(d) of the Act to divide the 40l(k) in just proportions as required under the Act.

Section 503(d) makes a spouse’s financial contribution one of several factors in dividing marital property; a greater financial contribution does not necessarily require a larger share.

In Re Marriage of Polsky · filed 2008-11-26(d)

Thus, under section 503(d), a spouse’s financial contribution to the acquisition of marital property is only one of several factors the trial court considers when fashioning an equitable distribution of marital assets.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions under the parties’ circumstances; an equitable division need not be mathematically equal.

In Re Marriage of Roepenack · filed 2012-03-02(d)

Section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act requires that the division of marital property upon the dissolution of marriage be in "just proportions" in light of the relevant circumstances of the parties. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2008). Although "just proportions" does not necessarily mean mathematically equal, the distribution must be equitable under the circumstances.

Section 503(d) requires a just and equitable division of marital property, which need not be mathematically equal.

In re Marriage of Troske · filed 2015-02-11(d)

As both parties note, however, property distribution need not be mathematically equal; rather, it must be in proportions that are just and equitable. In re Marriage of Zweig, 343 Ill. App. 3d 590, 599 (2003) (citing 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1996)). ... We further find that the court properly took this into account in distributing the property and assigning the debts.

Section 503(d) directs courts to divide only marital property; hypothetical Social Security benefits cannot be used to reduce the value of a marital pension.

In re Marriage of Mueller · filed 2015-07-23(d)

To hold otherwise would be to ignore section 503(d), which instructs trial courts to divide only marital property.

Section 503(d)(12) requires courts to consider the tax consequences of property division, including the distribution of pretax retirement accounts.

In re Marriage of Bradley · filed 2013-07-18(d)(12)

The nature of said accounts distinguishes the parties’ situation from that of the parties in Alexander, and we note that the circuit court is obligated by statute to consider the tax consequences of a distribution such as the court made in the instant case.

Section 503(d) treats each party’s contribution to marital assets as one factor among the factors for dividing the marital estate.

In re Marriage of Iqbal · filed 2014-05-06(d)

As to the second argument, the parties’ relative contributions to marital assets are but one factor among a dozen factors enumerated in section 503(d), and Mohammad does not argue that the balance of the factors favors him. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dividing the marital estate as it did.

Section 503(d) permits a court to allocate marital debt in just proportions, even when one spouse incurred more than half of it.

In re Marriage of Abu-Hashim · filed 2014-06-25(d)

Under the Act, after classifying property as marital or nonmarital, the trial court gives to each spouse his or her nonmarital property, and the marital property is divided into “just proportions.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2012). ... Although Rajaie correctly asserts Kimberly was responsible for more than half of the amount owed, this distribution of marital debt does not equate to an abuse of discretion.

Section 5/503(d) gives trial courts discretion to divide marital debt in just proportions, including debt incurred by one spouse after separation.

In re Marriage of Abu-Hashim · filed 2014-08-28(d)

The court took the home equity line of credit into account by deducting the amount owed from the net equity amount awarded to Rajaie. Although Rajaie correctly asserts Kimberly was responsible for more than half of the amount owed, this distribution of marital debt does not equate to an abuse of discretion.

Section 503(d) treats each spouse’s contribution to marital assets as one factor in dividing marital property.

In re Marriage of Iqbal · filed 2014-06-27(d)

As to the second argument, the parties’ relative contributions to marital assets are but one factor among a dozen factors enumerated in section 503(d), and Mohammad does not argue that the balance of the factors favors him.

Section 503(d) requires a just and equitable division of property, which need not be mathematically equal.

In re Marriage of Troske · filed 2015-03-26(d)

As both parties note, however, property distribution need not be mathematically equal; rather, it must be in proportions that are just and equitable. In re Marriage of Zweig, 343 Ill. App. 3d 590, 599 (2003) (citing 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 1996)).

Section 503(d) requires a just property division that considers each party’s contributions, including support that enabled the other party to acquire an asset.

In re Civil Union of Hamlin · filed 2015-07-20(d)

Thus, in accordance with the Dissolution of Marriage Act, the court is required to divide the civil-union estate “in just proportions considering all relevant factors.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2010). ... Based on the foregoing, we hold that the trial court’s determination that respondent contributed significantly more to the acquisition of civil-union property was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 503(d) permits a court to divide marital property after another court dissolves the marriage without personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse.

in re Marriage of Lasota · filed 2014-08-13(d)

Moreover, its finding of jurisdiction under section 503(d) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2012)) to hear Elzbieta's petition to dispose of the marital property and award temporary maintenance and interim attorney fees under sections 504(a) and 501(c-1) and 508(a) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/504(a), 501(c-1), 508(a) (West 2012)) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 503(d) permits an Illinois court to divide marital property after a divorce granted by a court that lacked personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse.

In re Marriage of Lasota · filed 2014-10-17(d)

Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in finding the Polish court lacked jurisdiction over Elzbieta in the dissolution proceeding. Moreover, its finding of jurisdiction under section 503(d) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2012)) to hear Elzbieta’s petition to dispose of the marital property and award temporary maintenance and interim attorney fees under sections 504(a) and 501(c-1) and 508(a) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/504(a), 501(c-1), 508(a) (West 2012)) was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 503(d) requires property to be divided in just proportions after considering all relevant factors, including each party’s contributions to acquiring it.

In re Civil Union of Hamlin · filed 2016-01-12(d)

Thus, in accordance with the Dissolution of Marriage Act, the court is required to divide the civil-union estate “in just proportions considering all relevant factors.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2010). ... The relative contributions of the parties might justify a disproportionate distribution of a civil-union asset or of all of the assets, but the relative contributions of the parties does not support awarding Cignot wholly to respondent.

Section 503(d) requires courts to divide the marital estate in just proportions, considering the spouses' circumstances, assets, and debts.

In re Marriage of Evanoff · filed 2016-06-27(d)

Under section 503(d) of the Act, the trial court must divide the marital estate in just proportions. ... We find this division of marital assets to be fair and equitable. Accordingly, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in making its award.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions, considering each spouse’s financial circumstances and other relevant factors.

In re Marriage of Vance · filed 2016-07-07(d)

Section 503(d) provides that the trial court "shall divide the marital property without regard to marital misconduct in just proportions considering all relevant factors." Id. ... Applying the statutory factors, the trial court's award of one-third of the equity in the house to Cecilia was proper considering that Stephen's financial circumstances—including his income and assets—were more favorable than Cecilia's.

Section 503(d) requires courts to divide marital property in just proportions after applying the relevant statutory factors.

In re Marriage of Sarancic · filed 2020-05-19(d)

Under section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage Dissolution Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2018)), the trial court must divide marital property in “just proportions,” applying the relevant statutory factors.

Section 503(d) calls for a just division of marital property that considers relevant circumstances, including maintenance and the allocation of marital debt.

In re Marriage of Kent · filed 2020-05-26(d)

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allocating the marital estate. The court ordered the sale of the marital residence and allocated to Luis $182,553 of $212,101 in marital debt. It also awarded Colleen maintenance. As Luis notes, all of these items are factors the statute provides be considered in allocating the marital estate.

Section 503(d) permits an unequal division of marital property when the division is equitable in light of the spouses’ circumstances.

In re Marriage of Abutaleb · filed 2020-06-16(d)

Section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) provides that marital property shall be divided in “just proportions” considering all relevant factors. ... In light of these facts, the trial court’s decision to award Mona 75% of the value of Hany’s 401(k) account at the time the dissolution judgment was entered was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions after considering all relevant factors, including a partial settlement agreement.

In re Marriage of O'Brien · filed 2020-08-10(d)

Given these circumstances, and in light of the factors set forth in section 503(d) of the Act, we cannot say that the court abused its discretion in distributing the marital assets.

Section 503(d) requires courts to divide marital property in just proportions after considering all relevant factors, and permits an equal division of a workers’ compensation settlement when those factors support it.

In re Marriage of Storm · filed 2020-10-14(d)

Here, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in awarding each party 50% of the workers’ compensation settlement. Contrary to Joshua’s assertion, the record demonstrates that the circuit court considered the relevant section 503(d) factors in dividing the marital property.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property based on relevant factors; the division need not be equal.

In re Marriage of Washburn · filed 2021-02-18(d)

A trial court is to divide the marital property in just proportions, considering all relevant factors, including: the value of the marital property; the economic circumstances of each spouse; the income of each spouse; and each spouse’s age, health, and employability. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2014). Just proportions do not mean strict equality, but only an equitable division based on the surrounding circumstances.

Section 503(d) permits an equitable division of marital property that need not be equal, based on the circumstances of the spouses.

In re Marriage of Spellman · filed 2021-03-01(d)

Under section 503(d) of the Act, the court has the authority to divide the marital property in “just proportions” after considering all relevant factors. ... Based on the facts of this case, including the disparity in the parties’ income, the value of the property awarded to the petitioner, and the fact that the petitioner needed to obtain alternative housing and purchase a vehicle, we find that the trial court’s allocation of the marital assets and liabilities was not an abuse of discretion.

Section 503(d) permits a court to divide marital debt in just proportions, including by assigning each spouse the portion used for that spouse’s personal or nonmarital purposes.

In re Marriage of Wiewel · filed 2021-09-27(d)

Section 503(d) of the Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2018)) “provides marital property shall be divided in ‘just proportions’ considering all relevant factors as well as others deemed relevant to the case.” In re Marriage of Cheger, 213 Ill. App. 3d 371, 381, 571 N.E.2d 1135, 1142 (1991). ... A reasonable person could agree that it was equitable for each party to be responsible for the portion of the debt that was used strictly for their own personal and nonmarital purposes.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions; identifying an asset as marital does not determine who receives it.

In re Marriage of Katsap · filed 2022-08-02(d)

Regarding the Highlander and Alex Solutions, Eneya makes no argument except that those items are marital property, as if that settles the question of their distribution. However, that is only the initial inquiry, and Alexander does not dispute that they are marital property.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property based on the statutory factors, but the shares need not be equal.

In re Marriage of Sessions · filed 2023-02-09(d)

Section 503(d) of the Act requires a trial court to divide marital property in just proportions. ... However, it is well-settled that this does not require an equal split but rather the most equitable distribution in light of the statutory factors. ... After considering the record, we find that the evidence presented at the hearing supported the trial court’s determination of the appropriate division of the marital estate, and James S. has not shown that the decision was an abuse of discretion.

Section 503(d) permits an equal division of marital property when the court considers the relevant factors, including each spouse’s contributions.

In re Marriage of Klose · filed 2023-03-31(d)

The circuit court’s order reflects that it carefully considered the factors outlined in section 503 of the Act, including the contributions of the parties, in distributing the property. Hence, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion when it divided the marital estate equally.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions after considering all relevant factors; an equal division may satisfy that standard.

In re Marriage of Kopecky · filed 2023-05-02(d)

Section 503(d) of the Act provides that marital property must be divided in “just proportions considering all relevant factors.” ... Indeed, in its order, the court painstakingly set forth the evidence presented to it and considered all the appropriate statutory factors for dividing the marital estate.

Section 503(d) permits a court to award one spouse the entire marital portion of a pension when the overall property distribution is equitable.

In re Marriage of Leitzen · filed 2023-05-09(d)

Although a portion of Heidi’s pension was presumed marital property under the Act, the circuit court was not required to divide it for its distribution of the parties’ marital property to be equitable.

Section 503(d) requires courts to consider the statutory factors and divide marital property equitably.

In re Marriage of Grant · filed 2023-11-03(d)

The insufficient factual findings by the circuit court demonstrate that it failed to consider the statutory factors when determining the marital property division. ... The circuit court’s inequitable apportionment of property was an abuse of discretion, and we remand the case to the circuit court to determine an equitable distribution of the marital estate.

Section 503(d)(10) makes whether a property division replaces or supplements maintenance one factor in deciding an equitable division; the award need not be limited to calculated maintenance.

In re Marriage of Celani · filed 2021-12-23(d)(10)

However, a full reading of the statute states, the trial court must determine “whether the apportionment is in lieu of or in addition to maintenance.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(10). It is just one of the statutory factors for the court to consider when awarding property. The trial court could have given a disproportionate award in addition to maintenance, and it would not necessarily have been an abuse of discretion, so the determination does not end with calculating the maintenance which Ms. Celani was due.

Section 503(i) authorizes a court to make just judgments affecting marital property, including an allocation considered alongside maintenance.

In re Marriage of Javadi · filed 2022-06-16(i)

As indicated above, the Act authorizes the trial court to grant maintenance “in amounts and for periods of time as the court deems just” (750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2020)) and ... also make judgments affecting marital property “as may be just” (id. § 503(i)). ... We find the court’s factual determinations support its allocation of property and award of maintenance and Amir has failed to establish the court’s actions were unauthorized by the Act.

Section 503(d) requires an equitable division of marital property and permits a larger share for a spouse who does not earn income.

In re Marriage of Dickinson · filed 2021-12-27(d)

The statute does not require the trial court’s distribution to be equal, only equitable, and it is well-settled that a distribution may provide a larger share to the non-income-producing spouse and still be equitable.

Section 503 permits a circuit court to assign the parties’ debt in its discretion based on the testimony at the final hearing.

In re Marriage of Cantway · filed 2022-05-04

Based on the testimony received at the final hearing, we conclude the circuit court acted in its discretion when assigning the ... parties’ debt and ordering Jack to pay guideline child support under the relevant provisions of the Act.

Section 503(b)(1) presumes that debt incurred during marriage is marital debt unless clear and convincing evidence establishes an exception under section 503(a).

In re Marriage of Horlbeck · filed 2023-09-06(b)(1)

Debt is a type of property for the purposes of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/503(a) (West 2020). Section 503(b)(1) of the Act provides: “For purposes of distribution of property, all property acquired by either spouse after the marriage and before a judgment of dissolution of marriage or declaration of invalidity of marriage is presumed marital property.” 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(1) (West 2020). This presumption may be overcome by a showing through clear and convincing evidence that the debt was acquired by a method listed in section 503(a) of the Act. Id. ... Laura failed to present any evidence to overcome the presumption that Burke’s fees were anything but marital debt. Accordingly, the trial court’s classification of $185,000 of Burke’s attorney’s fees as marital debt was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Section 503 requires courts to consider a spouse’s contributions to marital property and the family unit even if the spouse worked outside the home and the marriage had no children.

In re Marriage of Morris-Foland · filed 2023-03-02(d)(1)(ii)

Second, and more importantly, we reject the notion that the court was required to ignore Mary’s significant contributions to the marriage because she worked outside the home and the parties did not have children together. In addition to working until she was in her 70s, cooking, doing housework, and paying the couple’s bills, Mary designed and helped build the marital home. Nothing in either the express statutory language or the cases cited by Gary supports his contention that these efforts should not be recognized by the court.

Section 503 may require findings identifying marital loans, their amounts, and the property they encumber when those facts are needed to review whether the property division is just.

In re Marriage of Lach · filed 2024-06-07(d)

In the instant case, specific findings as to what loans exist, in what amounts, and what properties they encumber are necessary for us to determine the propriety of the property division in this case.

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property and debt based on the statutory factors; it does not require an equal split.

In re Marriage of Rosenberger · filed 2024-09-04(d)

Section 503(d) of the Act requires a trial court to divide marital property in just proportions. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2020). However, it is well-settled that this does not require an equal split, but rather the most equitable distribution in light of the statutory factors. ... As such, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in diving marital property.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions without regard to marital misconduct.

In re Marriage of Chamberlain · filed 2024-10-28(d)

Section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act requires marital property division in just proportions without regard to marital misconduct.

Section 503(d) requires marital property to be divided in just proportions after considering relevant factors, including each spouse’s needs and whether the division accompanies maintenance.

Biangardi v. Biangardi · filed 2025-03-07(d)

Section 503(d) of the Act requires a trial court divide marital property in just proportions by considering all relevant factors, including each spouse’s contribution to the acquisition of said property, the economic circumstances of each spouse, the income and needs of each spouse, and whether the apportionment is in lieu of or in addition to maintenance. ... We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s 50/50 division of the estate, particularly considering our decision to award Sandy permanent maintenance.

Section 5/503(d) requires the trial court to divide marital property between the parties.

In re Marriage of Xinos · filed 2025-05-06(d)

Thus, the fact that the trial court divided those financial accounts between Michael and Catherine was not improper either. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2020) (the trial court must divide marital property between the parties).

Section 503(d) permits an unequal division of marital property when the court considers the relevant statutory factors and the division is equitable.

In re Marriage of Nasson · filed 2025-06-13(d)

The division must be equitable, but not necessarily equal. ... Here, the trial court provided clear and thorough rationale for its 60/40 split based on the statutory factors in section 503 of the Act.

Section 503(d) requires the court to divide marital property between the spouses.

In re Marriage of Xinos · filed 2025-06-17(d)

Thus, the fact that the trial court divided those financial accounts between Michael and Catherine was not improper either. See 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2020) (the trial court must divide marital property between the parties).

Section 503(d) calls for an equitable allocation of marital debts and assets; an error that may have affected the allocation warrants reconsideration.

In re Marriage of Eads · filed 2025-07-15(d)

In this context, we find that the proper remedy is to reverse the allocation of marital debts and assets and to remand so that the trial court can reevaluate its allocation without this error.

Section 503(d)(5) directs courts dividing marital property to consider each spouse’s economic circumstances when the division takes effect.

In re Marriage of Rozdolsky · filed 2024-02-15(d)(5)

The relevant statutory factors are set forth in section 503(d) of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2022). Among the factors listed in the statute is “the relevant economic circumstances of each spouse when the division of property is to become effective.” 750 ILCS 5/503(d)(5) (West 2022). ... Considering both of these facts together, we also cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in not placing more weight on the “parties’ respective economic circumstances when the division of property [became] effective.”

Section 503(d) requires a just division of marital property, which may require specific findings about marital debts so the division can be reviewed.

In re Marriage of Lach · filed 2024-02-26(d)

The Act directs the trial court to divide marital property in “just proportions” after considering all relevant factors, including those set forth in the statute. 750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2020). ... In the instant case, specific findings as to what loans exist, in what amounts, and what properties they encumber are necessary for us to determine the propriety of the property division in this case. ... As such, we remand for further findings as to the parties’ marital debts and obligations.

Section 503(b)(2) recognizes each spouse’s ownership interest in pension benefits, and a court abuses its discretion by denying one spouse a marital share of the other’s pension.

In re Marriage of Nelson · filed 2025-07-30(b)(2)

“The division of pension benefits is an allocation of property in which each spouse has a species of common ownership.” 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2020). The trial court’s decision not to award Brian the small portion of Lindsay’s TRS pension was an abuse of discretion.

Section 503(d)(2) includes defined contribution accounts as pension benefits, permitting use of the Hunt formula to determine the marital portion of a retirement savings plan.

In re Marriage of McLean · filed 2025-08-18(d)(2)

Further, we note that section 503(d)(2) of the Act includes “defined contribution plans and accounts” in its definition of “pension benefits.” As such, we cannot conclude that the court erred by utilizing the Hunt formula to determine the marital portion of the AT&T retirement savings plan.

Section 503 permits courts to allocate marital debt to one spouse in lieu of awarding maintenance to the other.

In re Marriage of Bean-Oyler · filed 2025-11-06(d)(10)

A commonsense reading of section 503 leads us to the conclusion that courts may apportion marital debt in lieu of maintenance.

Section 5/503(d) requires a just division of marital property based on relevant factors, which need not be equal.

Voiland v. Kimmell (In re Kimmell) · filed 2012-10-12(d)

Since the Dissolution Act does not provide for an equal distribution, there is no reason to compare the rights under a settlement agreement to an equal division.

Section 503(c)(2)(B) does not require reimbursement for a spouse’s efforts on nonmarital property when the marital estate was reasonably compensated for those efforts.

In re Marriage of Burnett · filed 2021-05-14(c)(2)(B)

Further, we note that a trial court need not guess how much could have been distributed to the owner of a business had they chosen to reduce the size of their operation or modify how the business was run, as long as the party seeking reimbursement, and therefore the marital estate, was reasonably compensated for the other party’s efforts.

A spouse’s personal efforts benefiting nonmarital property may entitle the marital estate to reimbursement, but those efforts do not automatically make the property marital.

In re Marriage of Metz · filed 2020-04-06(c)(2)(B)

Under the plain language of section 503(c)(2)(B), when a spouse contributes personal efforts to non-martial property, the marital estate is entitled to reimbursement; however, it does not automatically transmutes the non-marital property into marital property.

Section 503(c) allows spouses to agree on the treatment of commingled property, including requiring a nonmarital estate to claim reimbursement from the marital estate.

In re Marriage of Faber · filed 2016-09-14(c)

Thus, Mark and Carole agreed that Mark’s nonmarital estate would be required to claim reimbursement from the marital estate, an agreement allowed under section 503(c).

Section 503(c) permits spouses to agree that a nonmarital interest in commingled property must be claimed through reimbursement.

In re Marriage of Faber · filed 2016-02-26(c)

Thus, Mark and Carole agreed that Mark’s nonmarital estate would be required to claim reimbursement from the marital estate, an agreement allowed under section 503(c).

Section 503(c)(2) allows reimbursement to the marital estate for a spouse’s work that increases the value of nonmarital property.

In Re Marriage of Uehlein · filed 1994-08-05(c)(2)

Based upon this uncontroverted evidence, the trial court correctly determined that respondent was entitled to reimbursement for her contribution to the value of the property, and it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to include $9,000 for that contribution into the marital estate. See 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(2) (West 1992).

Section 503(c) allows reimbursement when one spouse’s traceable nonmarital funds are contributed to the other spouse’s nonmarital property and were not intended as a gift.

In Re Marriage of Snow · filed 1996-01-31(c)

Here, applying section 503(c)(1) of the Act (750 ILCS 5/503(c)(1) (West 1992)), respondent’s $9,000 was transmuted to petitioner’s non-marital property when it was invested into petitioner’s nonmarital home. Although section 503(c)(1) of the Act refers to the commingling of marital and nonmarital property, we see no reason why that section should not apply when one spouse’s nonmarital funds are contributed to the other spouse’s nonmarital property resulting in a loss of identity of the contributing funds. Accordingly, pursuant to section 503(c)(2) of the Act, respondent is entitled to have her $9,000 reimbursed from petitioner’s nonmarital estate if it is retraceable by clear and convincing evidence and not intended to be a gift.

Section 503(c)(2) requires a spouse seeking reimbursement for a contribution to a marital residence to trace its effect on the residence’s current value by clear and convincing evidence.

In Re Marriage of Marx · filed 1996-06-28(c)(2)

Section 503(c)(2) requires that Martin trace the effect of his $20,000 into the current value of the residence by clear and convincing evidence. The trial court was entitled to conclude that he has not done so.

Section 503(c)(2) permits reimbursement to the marital estate for traceable marital funds used to enhance nonmarital property.

In Re Marriage of Nelson · filed 1998-06-26(c)(2)

Section 503(c)(2) of the Act provides a right to reimbursement for contributions made by one estate which have enhanced the value of an item of property classified as belonging to another estate. ... But the cash difference was supplied with marital property. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion in ordering Greg to reimburse the marital estate the value of the cash payment for the non-marital farm machinery.

Section 503(c)(2) allows reimbursement from nonmarital accounts receivable for a spouse’s contribution, but reimbursement is unnecessary when the spouse’s income has adequately compensated the marital estate.

In Re Marriage of Steinberg · filed 1998-09-30(c)(2)

In sum, we find that accounts receivable are subject to reimbursement under section 503(c)(2) of the Act. In the present case, however, the marital estate is not entitled to reimbursement from the nonmarital accounts receivable because Richard’s income has already adequately compensated the marital estate.

Section 503(c)(2) allows reimbursement to the marital estate only for a proven contribution to nonmarital property; a guarantee of a corporate loan that the corporation repaid is insufficient.

In Re Marriage of Blunda · filed 1998-11-02(c)(2)

However, this finding was erroneous since there was nothing to reimburse. The five-year loan to finance the transaction was taken out in May 1992 and was almost completely repaid at the time of the December 1996 judgment of dissolution. Thus, no personal assets of the estate were expended. There was nothing to reimburse, and there was no proof of a contribution from the marital estate.

Section 503(c)(2) does not require reimbursement for a marital contribution to nonmarital property when the marital estate has been sufficiently compensated by use of that property.

In Re Marriage of Crook · filed 2002-10-04(c)(2)

Therefore, due to the substantial compensation to the marital estate resulting from respondent’s nonmarital contributions, we find the marital estate is not entitled to reimbursement.

Section 503(c)(2) does not require reimbursement when the marital estate has already been compensated for its contribution through use of the nonmarital property during the marriage.

In Re Marriage of Crook · filed 2004-06-24(c)(2)

Section 503(c)(2) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act provides that “[w]hen one estate of property makes a contribution to another estate of property *** the contributing estate shall be reimbursed from the estate receiving the contribution.” 750 ILCS 5/503(c)(2) (West 2000). Consistent with our appellate court decisions, we hold that no right to reimbursement arises when the marital estate has already been compensated by its use of the nonmarital property during the marriage.

A marital estate is not entitled to reimbursement for mortgage payments on a spouse's nonmarital home when its use of the home fully compensated the estate for those payments.

In re Marriage of Ford · filed 2007-10-29(c)(2)

We conclude that the benefit of the use of the Port Barrington property fully compensated the marital estate for its contribution and that the marital estate is not entitled to reimbursement.

Section 503(c)(2) provides reimbursement when one estate contributes funds that enhance property belonging to another estate and the contribution was not a gift.

In re Marriage of McBride · filed 2013-05-14(c)(2)

Section 503(c)(2) of the Act provides a right to reimbursement for contributions made by one estate which have enhanced the value of an item of property classified as belonging to another estate. Thus, respondent established a right to reimbursement in the amount of nonmarital funds he contributed to that estate.

Section 503(c)(2)(A) requires a party seeking reimbursement between estates to trace the contribution’s source by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Marriage of San Jose · filed 2020-06-08(c)(2)(A)

We hold that Jennifer had the burden of proof and failed to identify the source of the funds at issue here. ... Without a source Jennifer could not show by clear and convincing evidence that the earnest money for and renovations to the Woodley Property were marital contributions to George’s non-marital estate.

Section 503(c)(2)(A) permits reimbursement for a contribution to the marital estate when clear and convincing evidence traces it to nonmarital property or rebuts the presumption of a gift.

In re Marriage of Langeberg · filed 2020-09-08(c)(2)(A)

A party is entitled to reimbursement when it makes a contribution to the marital estate, notwithstanding transmutation, but clear and convincing evidence tracing the contribution to nonmarital property or rebutting the presumption of a gift must be presented.

Section 503(c)(2)(A) reimburses the contributing property estate, rather than a spouse, only when the contribution is traced by clear and convincing evidence.

In re Marriage of Phalen · filed 2023-09-26(c)(2)(A)

Under this subsection, reimbursement, if any, goes to an estate and not a spouse. ... In short, the court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Steve failed to meet his burden of producing clear and convincing evidence which traced his contribution to the asset. Accordingly, no reimbursement is warranted.

Section 503(c)(2)(A) requires reimbursement to the marital estate for marital funds used to pay installments on a spouse’s nonmarital property.

In re Marriage of Mast · filed 2022-05-06(c)(2)(A)

On remand, the circuit court should calculate the amount the marital estate should be reimbursed for the payments made during the marriage (respondent said payments varied from a high of $24,000 to a low of $18,000 before he secured the loan to pay off the outstanding balance in 2008).

Section 503(c)(2)(A) provides reimbursement for a proven contribution to another estate of property, including a spouse’s nonmarital property.

In re Marriage of Amyette · filed 2023-08-11(c)(2)(A)

Furthermore, pursuant to section 503(c)(2)(A) of the Act, Jeanne was entitled to reimbursement for her $40,000 contribution to William’s nonmarital property.

Section 503(c)(2)(A) requires reimbursement to a nonmarital estate when its contribution is traceable by clear and convincing evidence and was not a gift.

In re Marriage of Celik · filed 2024-08-23(c)(2)(A)

Section 503(c)(2)(A) mandates reimbursement to a contributing party’s nonmarital estate if the contributed funds are traceable by clear and convincing evidence and were not a gift.

Section 503(g) permits a trust to protect a child’s best interests without requiring proof that the supporting parent is unwilling to make direct support payments.

JANSSEN BY JANSSEN v. Turner · filed 1997-09-09(g)

A demonstrated unwillingness to make direct child support payments may justify the creation of such a trust (In re Marriage of Rochford, 91 Ill. App. 3d 769, 782, 414 N.E.2d 1096, 1106-07 (1980)), but there may be other reasons that would support the creation of such a trust, and section 503(g) of the Marriage Act is not limited to circumstances wherein the supporting parent is unwilling to make direct child support payments.