Lack of Personal Jurisdiction
Wife could bring an action under a prior similar provision for the determination of equities in property and of alimony and attorney fees where the marital status had been determined by a valid ex parte foreign decree, but such latter court was without personal jurisdiction to determine equities in property or alimony. Sidwell v. Sidwell
Recourse in Illinois
Former wife, whose marriage had been dissolved by German court, had no recourse under this Act for determination of allocation of former husband’s military pension or other marital property. In re Brown
See Also: Womens Divorce Lawyers
It was not against the manifest weight of the evidence for the trial court to award the wife approximately 75% of the marital estate, notwithstanding that the marriage lasted less than four years, where the husband had $800,000 in non-marital assets and income of $40,000 to $50,000 per year, while the wife had no non-marital assets. In re Gattone
The court’s determination of the property distribution award was not an abuse of discretion. In re Abma
No error occurred with respect to the court’s consideration of the enumerated factors in subsection (d), including the parties’ respective contributions to the marital estate, when making its property distribution. In re McHenry
Court properly considered award of custody of son to father in distribution decision and properly awarded father the farm since he had custody. In re Koberlein
Award of marital property to petitioner was fair and equitable where the trial court carefully considered and applied all of the factors enumerated in subsection (d) that were relevant to this case, and petitioner was awarded the assets most valuable and practical for her to retain. In re Puls
The court’s determination of the property distribution award was not an abuse of discretion. In re Zwart
Although some of the factors listed in this section, such as petitioner’s custody of the child and the relative economic circumstances of the parties, weighed in favor of a larger property distribution to petitioner, other factors such as the length of the marriage and the contributions of each party in acquiring the property supported the trial court’s decision, and there was no abuse of discretion in the property distribution. In re Miller
No abuse of discretion was found in awarding two-thirds of assets to the wife who had a limited education, had been a homemaker, had poor health, and had been married for 42 years. In re Orlando
The court’s distribution of marital property was in just proportions. In re Drone
