Wading into a relatively new area of law involving civil-union dissolutions, a state appeals panel has ruled that one woman’s business qualified as union property even though she opened it before Illinois legally recognized civil unions.

Illinois residents Debra Hamlin and Victoria Vasconcellos entered into a civil union in Vermont in 2002.

Vasconcellos opened an e-cigarette business, Cignot, in 2009 — two years before Illinois lawmakers legalized civil unions.

In August 2011, two months after the Illinois civil union act took effect, Hamlin filed a petition to dissolve the union in DuPage County Circuit Court.

Vasconcellos responded with a motion asking the judge to declare any property accumulated before the civil union act’s June 1, 2011, effective date could not be classified as civil-union property.

At issue is whether Vasconcellos’ e-cigarette shop should be part of the split.

Associate Judge Neal W. Cerne denied Vasconcellos’ motion, holding the couple’s civil-union property began to accumulate with the Vermont union in 2002. But Cerne issued all of the proceeds from the shop’s bank account to Vasconcellos.

The 2nd District Appellate Court agreed that the shop qualified as union property but reversed Cerne’s decision to give all of its money to Vasconcellos.

In a 31-page opinion by Justice Joseph E. Birkett, the appeals panel held that the language of Illinois’ civil union act recognizes any unions or same-sex marriages that were legally entered in other jurisdictions.

The only requirement a civil union faces to be recognized in Illinois, Birkett wrote, is that it be entered into somewhere.

“In other words, parties to a foreign civil union that predated the act could have sought a dissolution on the effective date of the act without the need to first fulfill the various conditions precedent for residency and separation that would be required if the civil union were deemed effective only on the effective date of the act,” he wrote.

But Vasconcellos argued that a court shouldn’t be able to classify any property as part of a civil-union estate if it was acquired when Illinois didn’t recognize such a relationship.

Brian A. Schroeder — a partner at Schiller, DuCanto & Fleck LLP who represents Vasconcellos — plans to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to review the case.

The thrust of his argument, he said, lies directly in the statute’s language. It states any legal relationship other than common law marriage that is legally entered in another jurisdiction “shall be recognized in Illinois as a civil union.”

“We believe that the word ‘shall’ means ‘as of today forward,’” he said.

In its reversal in part, the appeals court took issue with Cerne’s division of the e-cigarette shop.

The company started in the couple’s home basement, and Hamlin maintained her full-time job while Vasconcellos dedicated her time to growing the business.

Cerne valued Cignot at about $1.2 million — all the cash it had in the bank at the time — and awarded it entirely to Vasconcellos, finding that Hamlin contributed “significantly less” to the business.

Cerne awarded Hamlin the entire value of an Elmhurst home the couple purchased as well as $75,000 from Vasconcellos.

The distribution gave Hamlin $462,459 and Vasconcellos $1,259,283.

The appeals panel held that Cerne not only overlooked the fact that Hamlin’s full-time job gave Vasconcellos the ability to open and run Cignot but that the judge also overlooked the fact that Hamlin earned more than Vasconcellos until Cignot flourished in 2009.

“Under both of these views, we believe that the trial court ignored significant realities in the nature of the parties’ relationship and their responsibilities within the context of the civil union,” Birkett wrote.

Megan M. Hayes, an associate at Katz & Stefani who represents Hamlin, said she is pleased that the appellate court affirmed the belief that a couple’s contributions should be valued and distributed appropriately.

“The abuse of discretion shown by the trial court in ignoring this long-held concept — routinely applied to the dissolution of traditional heterosexual marriages — will not be allowed to stand as the new and contrary precedent for same-sex couples,” she said.

Justices Susan Fayette Hutchinson and Donald C. Hudson concurred in the opinion released July 17, In re civil union of Debra Hamlin and Victoria Vasconcellos, 2015 IL App (2d) 140231.