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.

09/29/89 In Re Marriage of Charanjeet Rai

September 29, 1989

IN RE MARRIAGE OF CHARANJEET RAI, PETITIONER-APPELLANT, AND


APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT, SIXTH DIVISION

KRISHAN D. RAI, Respondent-Appellee

545 N.E.2d 446, 189 Ill. App. 3d 559, 136 Ill. Dec. 922 1989.IL.1578

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

APPELLATE Judges:

JUSTICE McNAMARA delivered the opinion of the court. EGAN, P.J., and QUINLAN, J., concur.

DECISION OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JUDGE MCNAMARA

The trial court dissolved the 13-year marriage of petitioner, Dr. Charanjeet Rai (the wife), and respondent, Krishan D. Rai (the husband), aNd following a bench trial, determined their property rights. Petitioner appeals, contending that the trial court erred in awarding an inequitable distribution of marital property in favor of respondent, who made little or no homemaker or financial contribution, and who dissipated the marital assets; that the trial court erred in failing to determine respondent's obligation to support the parties' two minor children; and that the trial court abused its discretion in ordering petitioner to pay a portion of respondent's attorney fees. Petitioner asks this court to enter judgment in her favor for an amount "significantly more than 50% of the marital assets," or in the alternative, to remand for a new trial on all issues.

The parties were married on May 24, 1970, in India. Petitioner is a licensed physician, specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, earning over $200,000 per year at the time of the 1983 dissolution of marriage. Respondent has several degrees in engineering, but has not worked in that field since 1975. Instead, he claimed some part in running petitioner's medical practice, and he invested in several restaurants, which allegedly brought him a net income of $4,800 during the entire period of their marriage.

The parties' daughter, Tanya, was born June 1, 1973, and a son Erik was born January 1, 1975. Petitioner filed for dissolution of the marriage on June 17, 1982. She retains custody of the minor children, and neither the dissolution nor custody is an issue in this case. Petitioner alleged in her petition for dissolution that respondent dissipated the marital assets and should receive no portion of the marital estate. On October 12, 1983, the trial court granted a bifurcated judgment for dissolution of marriage and reserved all remaining issues for trial. The trial took place over a two-year period, involving 19 days of hearings. Both sides offered evidence as to their marital assets; their respective efforts in caring for the children and home; their respective financial contributions; and respondent's dissipation of marital assets.

On October 15, 1986, the trial court rendered an oral decision on the remaining bifurcated issues. On February 6, 1987, the court entered an order relative to valuations of the marital assets. On April 2, 1987, a supplemental judgment for dissolution of marriage was entered.

On October 27, 1987, the trial court entered a final order, distributing the property as follows:

To Respondent:

1. Oak Brook home, including the debt thereon. (Value per respondent: $117,931; value per petitioner: $91,533; value per court: $104,732.) This home was built in 1981 for investment purposes and for use on weekends by petitioner and the children.

2. Petitioner would pay Oak Brook home's mortgage principal, interest, taxes and insurance for three months following entry of trial court judgment. Upon sale of this home, respondent could keep a net distribution of $370,000.

3. Pension Accounts -- one-half interest, not including the Keoughs or IRA's transferred to avoid current tax consequences to petitioner.

To Petitioner:

1. Lake Shore Drive Condominium. (Value per respondent: $166,000; value per petitioner: $150,000; value per court: $158,000.) The court found this was the family home where petitioner and the minor children resided.

2. Keough Plan and IRA's. (Value per respondent: $46,815; value per petitioner: $35,200; value as of October 1983, per court: $35,200.)

3. Automobiles, furniture, furnishings and jewelry in her possession and including the contents of both homes. (Value per respondent: $172,100; value per petitioner: $50,000; minimal value per court: $100,000.)

4. Stocks and Bonds. (Value per respondent: $99,700; value per petitioner: $12,500; minimum value as of ...


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.