In re MARRIAGE OF SHARON DOWD, Petitioner-Appellant, and MICHAEL DOWD, Respondent-Appellee.
Rule 23 Order filed May 1, 2013
Motion to publish allowed June 20, 2013
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Will County, No. 10-D-950; the Hon.
Robert Baron, Judge, presiding.
On appeal from a judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, the trial court’s award of 20% of respondent’s bonuses between $50, 000 and $100, 000 per year and none of the bonuses over $100, 000 and the denial of her request for attorney fees were affirmed, since both parties had significant assets, and under the circumstances, the trial court’s decision was not an abuse of discretion.
Howard M. LeVine (argued), Ross B. Shugan, and Brian W. Reidy,
all of LeVine, Wittenberg, Shugan & Schatz, Ltd., of Tinley Park, for appellant.
Gregory Jumbeck (argued), of Reich, Jumbeck & Associates, LLP, of Joliet, for appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE WRIGHT delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion. Justices McDade and O'Brien concurred in the judgment and opinion.
WRIGHT, PRESIDING JUSTICE
¶ 1 On August 3, 2011, the trial court entered a judgment dissolving the marriage of petitioner, Sharon Dowd, and respondent, Michael Dowd. On appeal, Sharon argues the trial court abused its discretion by awarding her only 20% of Michael's bonuses between $50, 001 and $100, 000 per year, and failing to award her any share of Michael's bonuses exceeding $100, 000 each year in her maintenance award. Sharon also argues the trial court erred by denying her petition for contribution to attorney fees. We affirm.
¶ 2 FACTS
¶ 3 The parties were married on September 14, 1990. No children were born during this marriage, a second marriage for each party. However, during the course of her marriage to Michael, Sharon assisted in raising Michael's daughter from his first marriage.
¶ 4 On May 14, 2010, Sharon filed a petition for dissolution of marriage citing irreconcilable differences. By agreement, the trial court entered a temporary order requiring Michael to pay certain expenses pending resolution of all issues, including payments for the mortgage on the marital residence and $2, 200 in monthly temporary maintenance to Sharon.
¶ 5 Ultimately, the parties resolved a majority of the dissolution issues by agreement but could not agree on the amount for maintenance. Therefore, the court scheduled a hearing for April 20, 2011 regarding any remaining contested issues. On that ...