Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtrialburden of proof
appealtrialburden of proof

Related Cases

Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321
View Case »
U.S. v. Plache, 913 F.2d 1375, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 247
View Case »
Harrington v. State, 659 N.W.2d 509
View Case »
Redman v. Walters, 88 Cal.App.3d 448, 152 Cal.Rptr. 42
View Case »
Jacobs v. Schiffer, 204 F.3d 259, 340 U.S.App.D.C. 221, 16 IER Cases 43
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Marriage of Dhillon, 2014 IL App (3d) 130653, 20 N.E.3d 1272, 386 Ill.Dec. 494

Facts

Inderbir S. Dhillon and Navneet K. Dhillon were married in 2002 and separated in May 2007. The husband managed the couple's finances and opened several bank accounts, including a significant account (account 4863) that grew to over $300,000 during the marriage. The wife was unaware of this account until after the separation. The husband claimed the funds belonged to his father, while the wife argued they were marital funds. The trial court initially ruled that the funds were nonmarital, leading to the appeal.

Inderbir S. Dhillon and Navneet K. Dhillon were married in 2002 and separated in May 2007.

Issue

Did the trial court err in classifying the funds in account 4863 as nonmarital property and in its determination regarding the dissipation of marital funds?

Did the trial court err in classifying the funds in account 4863 as nonmarital property and in its determination regarding the dissipation of marital funds?

Rule

Under Illinois law, all property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies with the party claiming the property is nonmarital.

Under Illinois law, all property acquired during the marriage is presumed to be marital property unless proven otherwise by clear and convincing evidence.

Analysis

The appellate court found that the trial court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the wife to show that the funds in account 4863 were marital property. The court noted that the account was opened during the marriage, and the husband failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that the funds were nonmarital. The trial court's conclusion that the marriage was not undergoing an irreconcilable breakdown at the time of the funds' transfer was also deemed against the manifest weight of the evidence.

The appellate court found that the trial court incorrectly placed the burden of proof on the wife to show that the funds in account 4863 were marital property.

Conclusion

The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that the funds in account 4863 were nonmarital property and concluded that all funds in the account were marital property. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

The appellate court reversed the trial court's finding that the funds in account 4863 were nonmarital property and concluded that all funds in the account were marital property.

Who won?

Wife, Navneet K. Dhillon, prevailed in the appeal as the court found that the trial court had erred in its classification of the funds as nonmarital property.

Wife, Navneet K. Dhillon, prevailed in the appeal as the court found that the trial court had erred in its classification of the funds as nonmarital property.

You must be