In re Marriage of Brankin
Appellate Court of Illinois
967 N.E.2d 358 (2012)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Karen Brankin (plaintiff) and Gary Brankin (defendant) were married. Karen made an annual salary of $75,000. Gary made an annual salary of $400,000. With this combined income, the Brankins maintained a high standard of living during their marriage. The Brankins lived in a home that they had purchased for over $1,000,000 and frequently traveled on Gary’s jet. Karen filed a petition for divorce. At the time of divorce, Gary was 58 years old and had recently suffered a heart attack. The trial court awarded Karen permanent maintenance of $3,000 per month. In making the award, the trial court primarily considered the Brankins’ previous high standard of living, Karen’s need for maintenance, and Gary’s ability to pay maintenance both at the time of the divorce and in the future, given Gary’s age and health. Gary appealed, arguing that the trial court had placed too much weight on the Brankins’ standard of living during the marriage and that Karen, given her salary, did not need maintenance. Gary also argued that, given his health, the trial court’s award of maintenance was too high and should not have been permanent. Karen also appealed, arguing that the trial court’s maintenance award should have more closely equalized the Brankins’ post-divorce incomes.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schostok, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.