Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > In re Marriage of Schneider

In re Marriage of Schneider

Case Date: 10/24/2003
Court: 2nd District Appellate
Docket No: 2-02-0894 Rel

No. 2--02--0894

IN THE

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

SECOND DISTRICT

 
In re  MARRIAGE OF
EARL M. SCHNEIDER,

               Petitioner-Appellant
               and Cross-Appellee,

and

JODI ANN SCHNEIDER,

               Respondent-Appellee
               and Cross-Appellant.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the Circuit Court
of Lake County

 


No.  00--D--1841


Honorable
Gary G. Neddenriep,
Judge, Presiding.

 

JUSTICE GILLERAN JOHNSON delivered the opinion of the court:

The respondent, Jodi Ann Schneider, appeals from the March 4, 2002, order of the circuitcourt of Lake County dissolving her marriage to the petitioner, Earl M. Schneider. On appeal, Jodiargues that the trial court erred in (1) failing to require Earl to maintain a life insurance policy naminghis children as the irrevocable beneficiaries; (2) valuing Earl's dental practice; and (3) failing to awardher attorney fees. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

The parties were married on August 25, 1985. Three children were born to the marriage:Ashley, born August 4, 1986; Justin, born February 14, 1989; and Jordan, born December 31, 1991. Earl filed a petition for dissolution of marriage on September 15, 2000. On this date, both he andJodi were 40 years old. Earl was self-employed as a dentist and Jodi was employed part-time as acertified public accountant (CPA). The parties' marriage was dissolved on March 4, 2002, after 16years of marriage. The parties agreed that Jodi would have sole care and custody of their threechildren.

The trial court conducted a hearing on the petition for dissolution between September 13,2001, and October 18, 2001. At this time, Jodi and the parties' three children resided in the maritalresidence and Earl resided in an apartment. On September 17, 2001, the parties reached a partialsettlement agreement. In this agreement, Earl's gross annual income was stipulated to be $325,000,with a net income of $195,000. Based on this income, child support was to be paid as follows:$5,400 per month until Ashley attained majority or graduated high school; $4,062.50 thereafter untilJustin attained majority or graduated high school; and $3,250 per month thereafter until Jordanattained majority or graduated high school. Earl and Jodi both waived maintenance, although Jodireserved the right to seek a disproportionate share of the assets.

Although the parties reached a partial settlement, they continued to present the trial court withthe issues that remained in dispute. Among the issues submitted for trial court determination were(1) the valuation of Earl's dental practice; (2) requests from both parties for contribution to attorneyfees; and (3) the allocation of marital property.

At trial, Jodi testified that she graduated college in 1981 and began working as a staffaccountant for $15,200 per year. She worked full-time until August 1986, when she had the parties'first child. Although Earl fought her attempts to go back to work, she and Earl compromised, andshe went back to work part-time. She worked about 20 hours per week until the parties' second childwas born in February 1989. After that, she stopped working at Earl's request.

Beginning in August 1986, Jodi worked at Earl's dental office and did all of the accounting,bookkeeping, billing, and receivables. She worked at the dental office through the summer of 2000. She learned the computer systems in the business and every office function at the front desk. Sheexplained that she learned these tasks because Earl wanted her to be able to take over in the eventsomeone quit.

In September 1998, when the parties' youngest child went to first grade, Jodi went back towork as an accountant for the same firm and worked about 15 to 20 hours per week. She testifiedthat Earl again put pressure on her to quit working. Consequently, she gave up all her clients, exceptfor three. She worked for one client five hours every three months, the second client 20 hours peryear, and the third client one hour every month. The rest of her time she devoted to taking care ofthe parties' three children. Jodi finally testified that, had she continued to work full-time, she couldhave become a manager and partner.

Earl agreed to stipulate to Jodi's homemaker rights pursuant to section 503 of the IllinoisMarriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (the Act) (750 ILCS 5/503 (West 2000)). Earl testifiedthat the dental practice was purchased during the parties' marriage with marital monies in 1987 froma Dr. Taub. The total purchase price was $550,000. Dr. Taub continued to work in the practice for2