Find Legal Information

Docket No. 95132-Agenda 17-May 2003.

In re MARRIAGE OF ROBERT L. CROOK, Appellant, and
PATRICIA J. CROOK, Appellee.

Opinion filed June 24, 20004.
 

JUSTICE KILBRIDE delivered the opinion of the court:

The petitioner, Robert L. Crook, appeals from the decision of theappellate court holding that: (1) the trial court erred in its division ofretirement funds, and (2) the marital estate was not entitled toreimbursement of $40,000 for payment made on a joint loan forimprovements to nonmarital property. 334 Ill. App. 3d 377. This courtallowed Robert's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315. Wereverse in part and affirm in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The petitioner, Robert L. Crook, and the respondent, Patricia J.Crook, were married for 33 years. Robert was a farmer until 2000, whenhe became a truck driver. Patricia worked in the home for 10 years andthen as a school secretary for 22 years.

Patricia retired from her job as a secretary at Parkland College inJuly 2000, after accepting an early retirement incentive plan. Patricia is noteligible to receive Social Security benefits. The parties stipulated thatRobert's current Social Security benefits entitlement is $850 per monthand will increase as Robert continues to work. Patricia may receive anominal Social Security benefit as Robert's former spouse if she does notremarry.

During the marriage, Robert farmed land owned by Patricia's family.Patricia was raised on the farm and had spent most of her life there. Thefarmhouse where Robert and Patricia lived during most of the marriageoriginally belonged to Patricia's parents, who deeded the farmhouse andfive acres of the farm to her in 1983. The property also contained amachine shed, a barn, a crib, a shop, and a steel grain bin. The buildingson the property were used as part of the farming operation. Inapproximately 1993, the parties jointly borrowed money from CentralIllinois Bank to build a new shed on the property to store farm equipment.The new shed replaced a barn that had burned.

When Robert quit farming, the parties agreed to sell the farmequipment. Following the sale of some of the farm equipment, $50,000 ofthe proceeds was placed into the parties' joint bank account. After Robertfiled for a dissolution of marriage, Patricia withdrew $42,000 from theaccount and applied $40,000 to the parties' shed construction loan whenshe became concerned that Robert might file for bankruptcy. Robertwithdrew the remaining $8,000.

On June 20, 2001, the trial court entered a memorandum opinion andsupplemental order. The trial court awarded Robert a $18,000 SEPretirement account and a $2,000 Roth IRA. The trial court then equallydivided the remaining payments on Patricia's retirement funds from theParkland College early retirement incentive plan, her State UniversityRetirement System benefits, and her Illinois Municipal Retirement Fundbenefits. The trial court's order resulted in an equal division of Patricia'sretirement benefits with each party receiving approximately $838 permonth until July 2004, based on Patricia's current early retirementincentive income. After July 2004, when Patricia's early retirementincentive payments from Parkland College cease, each party will receiveonly $460.20 per month from Patricia's remaining retirement funds. Inreaching its conclusion as to the division of Patricia's pension benefits, thetrial court did not consider the $850 in anticipated Social Security benefitsRobert would receive upon his retirement.

The trial court also determined that the marital estate was entitled toa $40,000 reimbursement for the funds Patricia withdrew from the jointaccount and applied to the debt incurred by the parties to build the shedon Patricia's nonmarital property. The trial court ordered Patricia toreimburse the marital estate by paying $40,000 of the 2000 tax liability of$67,991, plus one-half of the remaining tax liability.

Patricia appealed the trial court's division of retirement funds and itsorder that she reimburse the marital estate $40,000 for payment made ona joint loan for improvements to nonmarital property. The appellate courtreversed the trial court's order regarding pension benefits, holding that thetrial court should have considered Robert's anticipated Social Securitybenefits in making a division of Patricia's pension benefits. The appellatecourt remanded the cause for reconsideration of the division of Patricia'sbenefits with instructions to consider Robert's anticipated Social Securitybenefits in "striv[ing] to arrive at a division of property that is equitable toboth parties and places each party in similar economic circumstances."334 Ill. App. 3d at 390.

The appellate court also reversed the trial court's order requiringPatricia to reimburse $40,000 to the marital estate, determining that thedebt was marital and that the marital estate was not entitled toreimbursement because it "had been more than compensated for thiscontribution" through the use of the property during the marriage. Thiscourt allowed Robert's petition for leave to appeal. 177 Ill. 2d R. 315.

II. ANALYSIS

Robert presents two issues for review: (1) whether a court may offseta perceived disparity in Social Security benefits by awarding one party toa divorce a greater share of marital pension benefits; and (2) whether themarital estate is entitled to reimbursement of $40,000 for payment madeon a joint loan for improvements to nonmarital property.

A. Division of Retirement Benefits

The issue of whether a court may offset a perceived disparity inSocial Security benefits by awarding one party to a divorce a greatershare of marital pension benefits is an issue of first impression in this court.Section 503(d) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act(750 ILCS 5/503(d) (West 2000)) requires the trial court to divide maritalproperty in "just proportions," taking into account enumerated statutoryfactors and any additional factors the court deems relevant. Pensionbenefits attributable to contributions made during the marriage are maritalproperty. 750 ILCS 5/503(b)(2) (West 2000). Thus, in this case we mustexamine the interplay between the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution ofMarriage Act and the Social Security Act. This presents a question of lawthat we review de novo. People v. Chapman, 194 Ill. 2d 186, 217(2000) (de novo standard of review is applicable when there are nofactual or credibility issues and the issue presented is purely a question oflaw).

In enacting the Social Security Act (Act), Congress created anextensive and highly regulated public benefit plan. See Helvering v.Davis, 301 U.S. 619, 81 L. Ed. 1307, 57 S. Ct. 904 (1937). As part ofthis plan, Congress reserved to itself the exclusive power to alter, amend,or repeal any provision of the Act. 42 U.S.C.