Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

07/29/88 In Re Marriage of Smeeta Gurnani

July 29, 1988

IN RE MARRIAGE OF SMEETA GURNANI, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, AND


APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, FIFTH DIVISION

NANIK GURNANI, Respondent-Appellant

527 N.E.2d 895, 173 Ill. App. 3d 573, 123 Ill. Dec. 257 1988.IL.1169

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Jill K. McNulty, Judge, presiding.

APPELLATE Judges:

PRESIDING JUSTICE LORENZ delivered the opinion of the court. SULLIVAN and MURRAY, JJ., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE LORENZ

This appeal arises out of judgment rendered in an action for dissolution of marriage. Respondent, Nanik Gurnani, presents two grounds for reversal: (1) the trial court erred in finding that the transfer of a residence into joint ownership with petitioner, Smeeta Gurnani, in return for petitioner not prosecuting her pending dissolution action was a valid gift to the marriage; and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in denying respondent's post-trial motion for modification of the judgment.

We conclude respondent waived his right to contest on appeal the issue of whether a valid gift was proved at trial. We find no basis to conclude that the denial of modification below was improper. Accordingly, we affirm.

The following is pertinent to our Disposition.

Petitioner and respondent were married in Bombay, India, in 1968, ultimately settling together in Chicago. In 1971, respondent purchased an apartment building at 1518-24 West Addison Street. The parties resided in the building. It is undisputed that the property was purchased with respondent's own non-marital funds.

As a result of marital discord, on February 4, 1982, petitioner filed her action for dissolution of marriage. On October 29, 1982, however, the parties entered into an agreed order in an attempt to reconcile. Pursuant to that order, inter alia, respondent transferred title to the Addison Street property to himself and petitioner as joint tenants. In turn, petitioner agreed to refrain from proceeding with the pending action for dissolution.

The Addison Street property was subsequently sold in May 1984. Efforts to reconcile the marriage soon failed. Petitioner reactivated her action for dissolution and the cause proceeded to trial in June 1986.

In accordance with oral findings made at the trial's Conclusion on September 11, 1986, a written judgment for dissolution was entered on November 13, 1986. Relevant to this appeal, the judgment recited that the conveyance of the Addison Street property into joint tenancy, as recorded in the October 29, 1982, agreed order, created a presumption of a gift to petitioner. The judgment noted that respondent failed at trial to rebut that presumption; thus, the property was included in the marital estate. Also pertinent here, the judgment equally divided, as between petitioner and respondent, expected tax refunds for years 1982-84 as well as an anticipated tax liability for 1985.

On November 14, 1986, respondent filed a post-trial motion for modification of the judgment. In the motion, respondent argued modification was necessary because of "new evidence" consisting of the decision of the Internal Revenue Service to disallow certain investment related deductions claimed in the parties' 1981 joint tax return. The motion stated that that disallowance required recalculation of taxes for years 1982-85. On December 8, 1986, after hearing ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.