Background
Bryon Allen Johnston and Shavonna G. Jovan-Johnston married in 2005, and Bryon petitioned to dissolve the marriage in 2024. Because they had no children, the disputed issues concerned maintenance and property division, including their home equity, savings, and Bryon’s retirement accounts.
Shavonna, who receives Social Security Disability Income after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, sought a 65/35 division of certain assets in her favor. She cited her worsening health, limited education, extended absence from the workforce, low income, and reduced prospects for future employment. The circuit court instead divided the disputed marital assets equally and awarded her monthly maintenance of $2,073.29 for 172.5 months.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by dividing the marital property equally. Illinois law requires division in “just proportions,” but does not require an unequal distribution merely because the former spouses have different incomes or earning prospects.
The appellate court concluded that the circuit court considered the marriage’s duration, Shavonna’s health and disability, and her potential ability to earn income. It also explained that a trial court need not make an express finding on every statutory factor or give each factor equal weight. Given the deferential standard of review, the equal allocation of the home equity, $17,000 bank account, and retirement accounts was within the range of reasonable decisions.
Key Takeaways
- A “just proportions” division of marital property may be an equal division even when the spouses have substantially different incomes.
- A trial court must consider the relevant statutory factors but need not make specific findings about every factor or assign them equal weight.
- The appellate court deferred to the circuit court’s assessment that Shavonna retained some capacity to work despite her disability and employment history.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the broad discretion Illinois trial courts retain when distributing marital property. A disparity in health, income, or future earning capacity may support an unequal allocation, but it does not compel one when the record shows that the court considered those circumstances and reached a reasonable overall distribution.
The decision was issued under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and is nonprecedential except in the limited circumstances permitted by Rule 23(e)(1).