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.

In re Andrew

November 5, 1993

IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: RUTH ANN ANDREW, PETITIONER/APPELLANT, AND RAYMOND A. ANDREW, RESPONDENT/APPELLEE.


Cousins, Jr., Murray, McNULTY

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Justice Cousins, Jr.

Ruth Ann Andrew (petitioner) appeals portions of the dissolution of marriage judgment and order rendered by the trial court.

The issues presented for review are: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner maintenance, (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by (a) creating a child support (503(g)) trust out of the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence, (b) by appointing respondent trust administrator, and (c) by awarding petitioner 60% of the remaining net proceeds from the sale of the marital residence assets and 50% of all other remaining assets, (3) whether the trial court's award of $400 per month in child support for minor child was against the manifest weight of the evidence and, consequently, was an abuse of discretion, and (4) whether the trial court's failure to find that Raymond A. Andrew (respondent) dissipated marital property during the last two years of the parties' marriage constituted an abuse of discretion and was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

We affirm.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner and respondent were married on June 13, 1959. They had seven children: Thomas, born September 9, 1960 (emancipated); William, born August 15, 1964 (attending medical school),; Daniel, born January 13, 1966 (attending college),; Phillip, born September 30, 1967 (attending law school); Catherine, born February 1, 1970 (attending college); Patricia, born November 9, 1971 (attending college); and Michael, born January 23, 1976 (attending Loyola Academy High School).

During their 32-year marriage, petitioner's role was that of a homemaker although she received a Bachelor's degree in history and worked for a brief time after college.

Respondent, a lawyer by education, was licensed to practice law in New York and California. In addition to maintaining his status as a lawyer, respondent developed a career in corporate management. From 1985 through 1989, he functioned as the chief operating officer of Stalker Corporation, a subsidiary of EAC Industries. By the time respondent left Stalker, he had raised its value from $3,000,000 to $12,000,000. Although respondent's base salary was $125,000, he received various bonuses. In the Spring of 1989, he received a lump sum cash bonus from EAC. After his employment with Stalker, respondent was self-employed for seven months as a consultant for Chromoloid Corporation. Respondent's self-employment ended in 1989 when he stopped working. When asked why he stopped working and had failed to obtain employment since November of 1989, respondent testified that he had been depressed and that he had to guard the marital residence.

In 1989, respondent's adjusted gross income was $459,000. In 1988, respondent's adjusted gross income was $861,000. He testified that his approximate 1990 income was between $90,000 and $100,000 and was derived solely from interest and dividends that he earned on family investments.

Petitioner's non-marital assets acquired from an inheritance from her father consisted of stock and cash in the amount of $30,000 and real estate worth approximately $90,000.

The parties' amassed marital estate consisted of the following:

"Marital Residence located at 2 Kent $1,200,000

Road, Winnetka, Illinois

Bell & Howell Non-qualified Executive 323,000

Plan as of March, 1991

Stalker/EAC Profit Sharing Plan 45,000

Massachusetts Mutual as of 1/31/90

Merrill Lynch IRA rollover as of 4/27/90 58,000

Merrill Lynch Cash Asset account as of 1/26/91 1,002,524

Smith Barney IRA rollover (Bell & Howell Profit sharing) as of 12/29/89 115,000

Smith Barney Cash Asset as of 3/30/90 80,000

Horizon IRA (Ruth) as of 3/30/90 9,200

PETCO Stock (6,000 ...


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.