¶ 57 1. Child Support¶ 58 Sharyl first contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it awarded child support to Lloyd according to the statutory guidelines for a noncustodial parent, when the parties share custody of Alyssa. Specifically, Sharyl argues that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the law as announced by this district in In re Marriage of Reppen–Sonneson, 299 Ill.App.3d 691, 233 Ill.Dec. 885, 701 N.E.2d 1159 (1998). ¶ 59 Pursuant to the Act, a noncustodial parent should pay 20% of her net monthly income for child support for one child.

¶ 57 1. Child Support ¶ 58 Sharyl first contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law when it awarded child support to Lloyd according to the statutory guidelines for a noncustodial parent, when the parties share custody of Alyssa. Specifically, Sharyl argues that the trial court erred when it failed to apply the law as announced by this district in In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691 (1998). ¶ 59 Pursuant to the Act, a noncustodial parent should pay 20% of her net monthly income for child support for one child.

It is the responsibility of the trial court to resolve conflicting testimony concerning the valuation of marital assets. In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152, 171 (2005); In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691, 693 (1998). Generally, as long as the "trial court's valuation of marital assets is within the range testified to by expert witnesses, it will not ordinarily be disturbed on appeal."

¶ 20 We turn to respondent's claim that he is entitled to a downward deviation from the support guidelines because of the child care expenses he incurs, and petitioner saves, when he has visitation. Respondent relies on In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691 (1998), while petitioner relies on In re Marriage of Sobieski, 2013 IL App (2d) 111146, and In re Marriage of Demattia, 302 Ill. App. 3d 390 (1999). Also relevant to this case is language in a case not cited by the parties, In re Marriage of Turk, 2014 IL 116730.

Rather, “the court may apportion the percentage between the parents [citation], or may disregard the statutory guidelines in the Act and instead consider the factors listed in section 505(a)(2) [of the Act].” In re Marriage of Reppen–Sonneson, 299 Ill.App.3d 691, 695, 233 Ill.Dec. 885, 701 N.E.2d 1159 (1998). “The findings of a trial court as to net income and the award of child support are within its sound discretion and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion.”

There is no indication from the record that Kendelle was prevented from gathering additional evidence as to the value of RCA. The parties are obliged to present the court with sufficient evidence of the value of the property.In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691, 693 (1998). The trial court determined that Kendelle failed to introduce competent evidence of the value of RCA. She did not present expert testimony of RCA's market value or any evidence of RCA's assets and liabilities, beyond the bank accounts.

When custody is shared, however, the court may apportion the percentage between the parents or disregard the statutory guidelines and instead consider the factors listed in section 505(a)(2) of the Act. In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695 (1998). The factors listed in that section include: (1) the financial resources and needs of the children; (2) the financial resources and needs of the custodial parent; (3) the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved; (4) the physical and emotional condition of the children and their educational needs; and (5) the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.

When custody is shared, however, the court may apportion the percentage between the parents or disregard the statutory guidelines and instead consider the factors listed in section 505(a)(2) of the Act. In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695 (1998). The factors listed in that section include: (1) the financial resources and needs of the children; (2) the financial resources and needs of the custodial parent; (3) the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved; (4) the physical and emotional condition of the children and their educational needs; and (5) the financial resources and needs of the noncustodial parent.

¶ 58 When custody is shared, the trial court has the discretion to choose between two options in determining child support: (1) apportion the percentage between the parents; or (2) consider the statutory factors enumerated in section 505(a)(2).In re Marriage of Smith, 2012 IL App (2d) 110522, ¶ 66; In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill.App.3d 691, 695 (1998). Here, the trial court chose the second option based on Steve's greater income compared to Lynn's income.

Accordingly, we find that the circuit court's permanent maintenance award was reasonable. See In re Marriage of Reppen-Sonneson, 299 Ill. App. 3d 691, 695 (1998) (award of maintenance constituting 15% of payor's monthly net income held to be reasonable). Based on the evidence presented to the circuit court, we cannot find that the circuit court abused its discretion in ordering Jeffrey to pay monthly maintenance of $1,875 and monthly child support of $2,350.