PRINT, PDF, EMAIL

The trial court abused its discretion under Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 219(c)(iv) in barring the testimony of the husband’s expert because the late disclosure of the expert’s opinions and report was the result of the wife’s failure to provide the husband and the expert with the necessary financial information. It was the wife’s lack of diligence that caused the expert report to be untimely, therefore, the husband should not have been penalized. The trial court did not err in refusing to treat the wife’s attorney fees as advances against the marital estate under 750 ILCS 5/501(c-1)(2) (2012) because her higher fees were at least partially incurred during the collaborative process. The husband’s request for maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/504(a) was properly denied because he proved capable of supporting himself; he was 44 years old, in good health, and possessed a college degree. The lower court’s ruling was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.