¶ 73 In addition, we acknowledge that when James addresses the issue of whether the Scottrade account is nonmarital property in his cross-appeal, he relies upon cases involving transmutation pursuant to 503(c)(1) of the Act and not reimbursement under section 503(c)(2) of the Act. See In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, ¶ 7 1, 364 Ill.Dec. 852, 977 N.E.2d 761 ; In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 672, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008). Indeed we also observe that Yvonne's argument does not consider transmutation pursuant to section 503(c)(1) of the Act or reimbursement pursuant to section 503(c)(2) of the Act.

In particular, courts examine whether the owning spouse had the authority to order distributions and whether the entity unreasonably or fraudulently withheld distributions. See In re Marriage of Steel, 364 Ill Dec 852, 870; 977 NE2d 761 (Ill App, 2011) (stating that the trial court did not err when it found that the retained earnings were not part of the marital estate because the evidence showed that there were restrictions on the respondent's ability to disburse retained earnings, the business relied on the retained earnings to operate, the entity reimbursed the respondent for his tax payments, and the entity adequately compensated respondent through his salary); Neibaur v Neibaur, 142 Idaho 196, 200-201; 125 P3d 1072 (2005) (holding that the retained earnings of a "separate property corporation" may be subject to division if the corporation "unreasonably or fraudulently retained earnings instead of distributing profits as dividends"); Heineman v Heineman, 768 SW2d 130, 137-138 (Mo App, 1989) (stating that the retained earnings of a corporation were part of the marital estate because the spouse forwent all compensation for some period of time, which compensation would have been part of the marital e

See In re Marriage of Joynt, 375 Ill. App. 3d 817, 874 N.E.2d 916 (2007). See also In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, 977 N.E.2d 761. The same is true for the monies Roger received as his share of the distributions from Arapaho Village, which he placed into his own accounts. Under the circumstances, we find no abuse of the court's discretion in classifying Roger's portion of the retained earnings and distributions from Arapaho Village as nonmarital property. ¶ 14 Cheryl next finds fault with the court's award of maintenance.

"It is the obligation of the parties to provide sufficient information to the trial court in marital property valuation matters." In re Marriage of Benz, 165 Ill. App. 3d 273, 285, 518 N.E.2d 1316, 1323 (1988); In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, ¶ 102, 977 N.E.2d 761 (appellate court refused to entertain the petitioner's complaint regarding the quality of evidence on valuation where she herself did not attempt to introduce any better evidence); In re Marriage of Landwehr, 225 Ill. App. 3d 149, 153, 587 N.E.2d 529, 532 (1992) ("the appellate court has criticized the practice of parties in dissolution proceedings to challengethe trial judge's determination of the value of property where the parties, themselves, have failed to provide evidence upon which a purportedly more fair valuation might be made"); In re Marriage of Smith, 114 Ill. App. 3d 47, 54, 448 N.E.2d 545, 550 (1983) (the trial court's lack of adequate information to be used in valuing the respondent's pension rights was not attributable to the court because it was the parties' responsibility to present the requisite data).

“Property acquired during a marriage is presumptively marital [citation], and the presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence [citation].” In re Marriage of Steel, 2011 IL App (2d) 080974, ¶ 57, 364 Ill.Dec. 852, 977 N.E.2d 761. “Although the placement of nonmarital funds into a joint checking account may transmute the nonmarital funds into marital property [citations], nonmarital funds that are placed into a joint account merely as a conduit to transfer money will not be deemed to be transmuted into marital property [citations].” In re Marriage of Heroy, 385 Ill.App.3d 640, 673, 324 Ill.Dec. 310, 895 N.E.2d 1025 (2008).