{ "id": 5196229, "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF CHERYL A. ELLER, Petitioner-Appellant, and WALTER A. ELLER, Respondent-Appellee", "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Eller", "decision_date": "1992-08-21", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201491\u20140937", "first_page": "304", "last_page": "307", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "233 Ill. App. 3d 304" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "304 N.E.2d 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "15 Ill. App. 3d 698", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2463443 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/15/0698-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 N.E.2d 865", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ill. App. 3d 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 3357843 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/59/0552-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 365, "char_count": 5664, "ocr_confidence": 0.823, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.15624636803149528 }, "sha256": "5e1e4717f0b7dd3bdc717e7c5f5e8415027e0b5398f88d98db94762e7bd436b1", "simhash": "1:275acc6748c85ba7", "word_count": 943 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:27.838009+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "In re MARRIAGE OF CHERYL A. ELLER, Petitioner-Appellant, and WALTER A. ELLER, Respondent-Appellee." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe petitioner, Cheryl A. Eller, appeals from the trial court\u2019s order denying her continued rehabilitative maintenance. We reverse the decision and remand the cause for proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nThe record shows that Cheryl and the respondent, Walter A. El-ler, were divorced in 1989. The divorce decree provided in relevant part:\n\u201cThat Walter shall pay to Cheryl through the Clerk of this Court the sum of $150 per week commencing Friday, August 11, 1989, and each and every Friday thereafter, as and for maintenance until August 7, 1991. Cheryl may make application to the Court in order to continue said payments beyond August 7, 1991, by filing a Petition no later than July 7, 1991. That Walter\u2019s obligation to pay maintenance to Cheryl shall terminate on August 7, 1991, if a Petition is not filed by July 7, 1991. At the time of filing of the Petition, the Court shall make a determination as to whether Walter shall be obligated to continue to make maintenance payments to Cheryl beyond August 7, 1991. In any event, if the Petition to continue maintenance payments is timely filed pursuant to this paragraph, Walter shall be obligated to continue to make maintenance payments to Cheryl until an Order is entered by this Court terminating all maintenance obligations from Walter to Cheryl.\u201d\nPrior to July 7, 1991, Cheryl filed a petition seeking to continue the rehabilitative maintenance. She alleged that continued maintenance was necessary because she was suffering from a medical disability. Specifically, she said that she had double and triple vision.\nA hearing on the petition was set for September 19, 1991. However, on that date the court, on its own motion, ordered a continuance because Cheryl did not plan to call a medical expert to testify regarding her condition. Although Cheryl explained that she could not afford to pay an expert to testify, the court nonetheless stated that she should get one because it was unlikely to award continued maintenance if she did not.\nThereafter, on November 4, 1991, Cheryl informed the court that she still did not have the funds to pay an expert to testify. She stated that her treating ophthalmologist would not testify until she paid her past-due bills and agreed to pay him an expert witness fee. She then asked for a continuance, which was denied.\nCheryl then testified that she has been unable to maintain steady employment or to complete her education because she has eye problems. Due to her cataract condition, at times she suffers from double and triple vision. She stated that since the divorce she has worked periodically for her father in his business and as a cleaning woman in homes. She has also obtained 17 credit hours at Joliet Junior College. However, her ability to both work and attend classes is affected by her inability to see well. She also testified that she has trouble driving and is usually driven around by her daughter Heather. Heather testified that she drives her mother wherever she needs to go.\nWe note that Heather\u2019s remaining testimony corroborated Cheryl\u2019s testimony. We also note that Walter does not contest the fact that Cheryl suffers from vision problems. However, he does contest her conclusion that her disability limits her ability to obtain employment.\nFollowing the hearing, the trial court found that Cheryl failed to prove she could not get employment or be a full-time student. It held that \u201cCheryl Eller didn\u2019t prove it, because Cheryl Eller chose not to produce expert testimony.\u201d\nOn appeal, Cheryl argues that the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding that she was required to present expert testimony in order to prove she was suffering from vision disabilities. We agree.\nAlthough we were unable to find a case on point, we note that this case is analogous to personal injury cases in which plaintiffs commonly testify as to their injuries. In such cases, we have consistently held that a plaintiff need not produce expert medical testimony to prove damages. See Chapman v. Foggy (1978), 59 Ill. App. 3d 552, 375 N.E.2d 865; Wiacek v. Hospital Service Corp. (1973), 15 Ill. App. 3d 698, 304 N.E.2d 730.\nApplying the above principle to the case at hand, we hold that the trial court erred in finding that expert medical testimony was necessary for Cheryl to prove her need for continued maintenance. In addition, we find that such testimony was unnecessary in light of the fact that Walter presented no evidence disputing Cheryl\u2019s testimony regarding her vision problems. In conclusion, we hold that the trial court should have evaluated the evidence presented by Cheryl and her daughter on its own merits to determine if it was sufficient to meet Cheryl\u2019s burden of proof.\nAccordingly, we find that this cause should be remanded for a new hearing. We also find that since our decision puts the parties in the same position they were in prior to the trial court\u2019s decision, Cheryl is entitled to continued maintenance. She should receive this support under the terms of the parties\u2019 divorce decree until a trial court finds that it must be terminated.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Will County is reversed, and the cause is remanded for proceedings consistent with this decision.\nReversed and remanded.\nBARRY, P.J., and SLATER, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Susan D. Lyons, of Andreano & Lyons, of Joliet, for appellant.", "Douglas W. Schlak and Annette Murrie, both of Wirt, Schlak & Lauter-bach, of New Lenox, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF CHERYL A. ELLER, Petitioner-Appellant, and WALTER A. ELLER, Respondent-Appellee.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201491\u20140937\nOpinion filed August 21, 1992.\nSusan D. Lyons, of Andreano & Lyons, of Joliet, for appellant.\nDouglas W. Schlak and Annette Murrie, both of Wirt, Schlak & Lauter-bach, of New Lenox, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0304-01", "first_page_order": 324, "last_page_order": 327 }