Husband filed a motion for a preliminary injunction against wife.  He had filed divorce proceedings.  He wanted the court to stop her from participation in the operation of their family-owned tavern. The trial court granted his request.  The wife appealed.

The Appellate Court agreed with the trial court. 

Wife had been employed as a bartender or waitress over the past 25 years. Throughout the marriage, she worked at the family-owned tavern until the court issued the TRO.   Then, she had no source of income.

The parties agreed they were unable to operate the tavern together.  They were simply not able to communicate. However, wife thought they could each participate in its operation if each was at the tavern at different times.

The husband viewed this arrangement as impractical because of their inability to communicate. Husband testified tavern patrons noticed the animosity between the parties.   If both parties continued to operate the tavern, its profits would suffer.

Husband’s testimony suggested wife began taking money from the tavern’s cash drawer a number of month’s back.  Records had been prepared by the tavern’s accountant.  They showed losses each month for about six months.

The trial court had found preliminary injunctive relief proper.  The business would be irreparably injured if both parties continued to participate in its operation.  This would diminish its value as a marital asset.

It considered which party should continue to operate the tavern.  It was close.  The court reasoned the evidence showed husband petitioner managed the tavern.  He should remain in control of its operation.

IRMO Joerger, 221 Ill.App.3d 400.