You can follow every rule, turn over every document you are asked for, and still walk out of a Chicago courtroom with a spousal support award that feels tens of thousands of dollars too low. The numbers on the final order may bear little resemblance to the lifestyle you lived during the marriage or to what you know your spouse actually earns. That disconnect often leaves people convinced the judge simply did not care or that the system is stacked against them.
In our experience, what went wrong is usually less dramatic and more technical. The court almost always makes its decision based on the financial story that was actually put in front of it, not on what everyone in the room quietly suspects is true. If key accounts, business income, or deferred compensation were never traced and never presented in a coherent way, they effectively did not exist when the judge evaluated maintenance options.
At Weiss-Kunz & Oliver, we litigate complex, high-net-worth divorces in Chicago and surrounding communities, including Elmhurst and Park Ridge. We see the same pattern play out again and again in Cook and DuPage County courtrooms. Judges often point to weak documentation and incomplete financial affidavits as the reason they cannot go higher on support. This blog walks through how asset tracing really works in Chicago divorce cases, where it breaks down, and how those failures quietly tank spousal support awards.
How Asset Tracing Shapes Spousal Support in Chicago Divorces
Illinois courts do not pull spousal support numbers out of thin air. When a judge in Chicago, Rolling Meadows, Maywood, or Wheaton looks at maintenance, they consider each party’s income, the property each person is keeping, the standard of living during the marriage, and the length of the relationship. All of that analysis depends on one thing, which is the financial picture built through affidavits, discovery, and any tracing or forensic work that has been done.
Asset tracing is the process of following money and property through accounts, entities, and transactions so we can see what exists, who owns it, and whether it is marital or non-marital. In a straightforward W-2 case, this can be simple. In a Chicago-area divorce involving a closely held business, multiple investment accounts, stock options, or inherited wealth, tracing becomes the backbone of the case. Without it, the court is really only seeing the tip of the financial iceberg.
Maintenance is not technically calculated off the value of assets, but assets and income are tightly linked. Untraced investment accounts generate interest and dividends that may never appear in a basic pay stub. A business that retains profits or pays personal expenses through the company can mask a substantial amount of real income. If those streams are not identified and presented, the court’s income figures are artificially low and the support numbers that flow from them are lower as well.
Where Asset Tracing Breaks Down in Real Chicago Cases
Most clients assume that if both parties hand over tax returns, pay stubs, and bank statements, the major assets will be obvious. In practice, the tracing process breaks down in very predictable places. One of the biggest failure points is treating tax returns as the final word on income. Returns are helpful, but they are summaries. They do not show how money moved through closely held companies, what shareholder loans really are, or whether reimbursed expenses are actually personal perks.
Another common breakdown occurs in discovery. Lawyers send generic requests, receive boxes of disorganized records or limited electronic downloads, and then move straight into settlement conferences or trial preparation without ever following up. No one sits down to match cash deposits to reported income, to trace transfers between personal accounts and business accounts, or to ask why a particular LLC suddenly appeared in the middle of the marriage. The window to demand more detailed records quietly closes while everyone focuses on negotiation and court dates.
Financially savvy spouses can exploit these gaps without doing anything that looks like blatant fraud. A business owner might defer a bonus until after the divorce, increase contributions to retirement accounts, or run more personal expenses through the company in the year or two leading up to separation. Someone with multiple investment accounts might shift funds into an account that is technically separate but still functionally under their control. If no one traces those moves, that money is not part of the maintenance story.
We also see tracing fail because no one questions accounting labels. A K-1 may show little taxable income, while the same individual is taking sizable distributions that are never treated as income in the support calculation. A line called “loan to shareholder” can, in reality, be a vehicle for funneling cash to the owner. Unless someone is willing to dig into the general ledger, bank records, and corporate minutes, these items sail past unnoticed and the support calculation is quietly depressed.
Missed Assets Translate Into Tens of Thousands Lost in Support
The impact of a missed asset or income stream is not abstract. Consider a simple example. Suppose your spouse’s W-2 shows $200,000 per year, and that figure drives the maintenance discussion. If no one ever looks closely at the business tax returns and bank statements, it might appear that this is the full picture. In reality, your spouse may also be taking $50,000 per year in regular distributions from the company that never show up as W-2 wages.
If the court only sees $200,000 in income instead of $250,000, every guideline-style calculation that flows from that number is lower. Over a ten year maintenance period, that uncounted $50,000 per year can mean hundreds of thousands of dollars in income that was never part of the support analysis. Even if the formula is not applied mechanically, the judge is likely to view your spouse as a $200,000 earner, not a $250,000 earner, and will set maintenance based on that lower capacity.
Investment accounts create similar distortions. Imagine a $500,000 brokerage account opened and funded during the marriage but titled in only one spouse’s name. If that account is never traced and never clearly identified, the associated income and the security it provides vanish from the maintenance conversation. The court may conclude that the higher-earning spouse has limited liquidity, that the dependent spouse can rely on a smaller property distribution, and that a modest maintenance award is enough, all based on an incomplete picture.
This is where lifestyle analysis and cash flow analysis come in. A lifestyle analysis looks at what the family actually spent on housing, travel, tuition, dining, and other categories over time, then compares that to reported income. If you and your spouse routinely spent $300,000 per year but only $200,000 in income was reported, there is a disconnect that needs explaining. Cash flow analysis similarly tracks money into and out of accounts to see whether there are unexplained deposits, transfers, or withdrawals that are inconsistent with the official income story.
We often work with forensic accountants in these situations, particularly in Chicago-area cases involving businesses or irregular income. They help us quantify how much income is missing from the surface-level documents and present that analysis in a way that a judge can understand and trust. That level of detail can be the difference between a support award that barely covers basic expenses and one that accurately reflects how the family lived and what the higher-earning spouse can truly pay.
Why Judges Discount Maintenance Claims Built on Weak Financial Records
Judges in Cook, DuPage, and surrounding counties see a constant stream of divorce cases with competing financial stories. They are trained to be skeptical of claims that are not backed up by clear documentation. When a party walks into court with an incomplete financial affidavit, unexplained bank activity, or inconsistent testimony about income, many judges respond by falling back on the lower, better documented figure. They are reluctant to award substantial maintenance based on speculation.
Courtrooms run on evidence, not suspicion. Even if it is obvious from lifestyle that more money is flowing somewhere, a judge generally cannot impute income or treat an account as marital without something solid in the record. That might be bank statements showing a pattern of transfers, business records revealing hidden distributions, or a tracing analysis that ties unexplained deposits to a spouse’s control. Without this, the court’s options are limited and the support award is more conservative than it might otherwise be.
We have seen Chicago-area judges comment directly on the quality of financial documentation in their rulings. When one side presents organized exhibits that trace funds from business accounts into personal accounts and then into spending, while the other offers only broad statements that “there was more money,” the court tends to credit the side with the paper trail. Weak records do not only hurt the spouse who is hiding assets. They also hurt the spouse who needed those income streams recognized to justify higher support.
Common Myths About Hidden Assets and Spousal Support
One myth we hear often in Chicago is, “My spouse gave the court their tax returns and pay stubs, so the judge already knew everything.” Tax returns and pay stubs are starting points, not the final word. They rarely capture business distributions, personal expenses run through a company, or investment income that is being reinvested rather than withdrawn. If no one looks behind those documents, unreported or underreported income can quietly escape the support calculation.
Another common belief is, “If the judge really wanted to find hidden money, they would have dug deeper.” In family law, the court generally relies on the parties to develop the record. Judges can order additional disclosure when there is a clear reason, but they cannot act as investigators for each case. If the lawyers do not request certain records, if no one challenges gaps in the financial story, and if no tracing analysis is offered, the court usually will not go searching on its own.
We also meet clients who think, “The order is entered, so nothing can be done now,” even when they later uncover red flags. While not every situation allows for a change, in some cases there are post-judgment options. Newly discovered assets, clear evidence that earlier information was materially incomplete, or significant shifts in income can sometimes support a request to revisit maintenance. The key is understanding exactly where the earlier tracing and documentation fell short and how that affected the award.
How Strong Asset Tracing Is Built in Chicago Divorce Cases
Good asset tracing does not happen by accident. It starts with targeted discovery requests that are tailored to the actual financial structure in your family. That might include specific bank accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement plans, and business entities associated with your spouse. Rather than asking only for the last year of statements, we often request records covering a longer period so we can see patterns that a short snapshot would miss.
From there, we work through those records in a structured way. Bank statements are reviewed month by month to identify regular deposits, unusual transfers, and large cash withdrawals. Brokerage statements are checked for new accounts, transfers to outside institutions, and reinvested income. Business records, such as general ledgers and expense reports, are examined to see whether personal expenses are being disguised as business costs or whether unexplained loans and distributions are being used to move money to the owner.
In many Chicago-area cases involving businesses or complex compensation packages, we recommend bringing in a forensic accountant. These professionals help reconstruct income and assets by cross-checking tax returns, bank records, and spending patterns. They are especially useful when a spouse is paid through a mix of salary, bonuses, stock, and business distributions. Working side by side with forensic accountants, we can present a clear, documented explanation of what the higher-earning spouse really brings in each year.
Certain documents show up again and again in effective tracing work. These include multi-year bank statements, full brokerage account histories, tax returns with all schedules and K-1s, corporate general ledgers, credit card statements, and, in some cases, loan applications where a spouse described their income more candidly. Each piece helps fill gaps. For example, a loan application listing much higher income than a recent tax return can signal that reported numbers should be questioned and that further tracing is warranted..
Repairing Asset Tracing Failures After a Support Award
Many people find this information after their divorce is already over and a support order is in place. They start seeing bank statements or business records that raise questions, or they notice that their former spouse’s lifestyle has not changed, even though the income they told the court about seemed modest. At that point, the question becomes whether anything can be done about the earlier tracing failures that may have suppressed maintenance.
In some situations, the answer is yes. Illinois law allows for modification of maintenance under certain circumstances, such as substantial changes in income. In more limited cases, there may be avenues for relief when material information was not disclosed or when new assets come to light. The specifics depend on the facts of the case, the timing, and what exactly the earlier record did or did not show. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, which is why a careful review matters.
The first practical step is often a focused second look at the financial record that supported the original order. That typically means reviewing the judgment itself, the financial affidavits both sides filed, the discovery responses, and whatever bank or business records were exchanged. We look for clear gaps, such as entire accounts that were never identified, unexplained transfers, or asset classifications that do not match how an account was actually funded.
Talk With A Chicago Divorce Team That Understands Asset Tracing
If your spousal support award feels disconnected from the life you lived and what you know your former spouse can afford, the problem may not be your expectations. It may be that critical assets and income streams were never fully traced and never clearly presented to the court. Understanding whether that happened in your case is the starting point for deciding what, if anything, you can do now.
At Weiss-Kunz & Oliver, we combine big-firm financial litigation experience with the accessibility of a boutique practice. We regularly guide clients through complex divorce and post-divorce disputes across the Chicago metropolitan area, including Elmhurst and Park Ridge, and we know how judges here view financial evidence in maintenance cases. If you are concerned that asset tracing failures may have cost you substantial support, we can review your file, your financial records, and your order to help you understand your position and your options.
Call us to schedule a confidential consultation with our Chicago spousal support/alimony attorneys.
