In re: the Marriage of ELIZABETH H. JENSEN, Petitioner-Appellee, and PHILLIP M. JENSEN, Respondent-Appellant.
In marriage dissolution proceedings where the trial court reserved the (Note: This syllabus issue of maintenance, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider constitutes no part of respondent's appeal alleging that the trial court abused its discretion in the opinion of the court allocating petitioner 55% of the marital estate and that it erred in finding but has been prepared that respondent dissipated $14, 000 in marital assets, since the trial court's by the Reporter of order was not final for purposes of appeal. Decisions for the convenience of the reader.)
Under Appeal from the Circuit Court of Coles County, No. 09-D-134; the Hon. Review Teresa K. Righter, Judge, presiding. Judgment Dismissed.
Brian L. Bower, William A. Sunderman (argued), and Madison Mullady, Appeal all of Brainard Law Offices, of Charleston, for appellant.
Mark E. Ferguson and Jay W. Ferguson (argued), both of Law Office of Mark E. Ferguson, Ltd., of Mattoon, for appellee.
Panel JUSTICE HOLDER WHITE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Presiding Justice Steigmann and Justice Pope concurred in the judgment and opinion.
HOLDER WHITE JUSTICE
¶ 1 In January 2011, the trial court entered an order dissolving the marriage of petitioner, Elizabeth H. Jensen, and respondent, Phillip M. Jensen. Following an August 2011 hearing, the court allocated the parties' various assets, including a $327, 950 investment retirement account (IRA) with Richard, Merrill & Peterson, held in Phillip's name. In May 2012, the court modified its original order, (1) finding Phillip dissipated approximately $14, 000 in marital assets, and (2) increasing the amount of the IRA awarded to Elizabeth from 50% to 62%.
¶ 2 Phillip appeals, arguing the trial court (1) abused its discretion by allocating approximately 55% of the total marital estate to Elizabeth, and (2) erred by finding Phillip dissipated approximately $14, 000 in marital assets.
¶ 3 Because we conclude we do not have jurisdiction to address Phillip's contentions, we dismiss the appeal.
¶ 4 I. BACKGROUND
¶ 5 Elizabeth and Phillip married on May 26, 1987. The parties had three children during their marriage.
¶ 6 A. The Trial Court's Temporary Orders and Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage
¶ 7 In June 2009, Elizabeth filed a petition for dissolution of marriage and a petition for temporary relief. In September 2009, the trial court entered a temporary order requiring Phillip to pay $2, 600 biweekly as unallocated maintenance and support. The court subsequently modified the temporary order in November 2010, ordering bimonthly child support payments of $1, 553.25. In April 2011, the court granted, in part, Phillip's petition for termination of support and maintenance, staying Phillip's maintenance obligation.
¶ 8 In January 2011, the trial court entered a judgment of dissolution of marriage, reserving the resolution of "[a]ll other issues including those of maintenance and property allocation" for a subsequent hearing.
¶ 9 B. The August 2011 Hearing
¶ 10 In August 2011, the parties appeared for a hearing on all remaining issues. Phillip testified that from 1987 through 1991, he pursued postgraduate dentistry training in Chicago, Illinois. During this time, Elizabeth helped support the couple through her employment as a ...