Michelle A. Lawless
The Law Office of Michelle A. Lawless LLC
161 N. Clark St. Suite 1700 Chicago, Illinois
Telephone: (312) 741-1092
www.malfamilylaw.com; michelle@malfamilylaw.com.
- Post-judgment child support arrearage affirmed where parties did not memorialize alleged oral agreement to modify support in a court order. In a post-judgment action, wife filed a Petition for Rule to Show Cause against husband for failure to pay child support. The trial court found husband in indirect civil contempt with an arrearage of $78,885 and ordered him to pay wife’s attorneys’ fees. Husband appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed. At issue was language was language which provided that husband would pay $700 per month which was 28% of his net income and that husband was required to provide wife with his income information on an annual basis. The agreement further stated: “In the event [husband] earns additional income, he shall provide to [wife] his child support calculations and his additional child support payments.” Although husband made agreed-upon increases to his monthly payments over the years, he failed to provide required documentation and underpaid based on his actual earnings. At trial, husband argued that he understood the child support provision to only require additional child support and income documentation in the event he found a second job. The court rejected his arguments and found the language was unambiguous and his arguments self-serving and unreasonable. On appeal, the Court held that the parties could not orally modify their agreement because the modification of a child support obligation is a judicial function administered exclusively by court order. The Court cited to the Illinois Supreme Court case of Blisset v. Blisset, 123 Ill.2d 161 (1988) which stated, “Allowing former spouses to modify a court-ordered child support obligation by creating a new agreement between themselves without judicial approval would circumvent judicial protection the children’s interests.” The Court also rejected husband’s claims that equitable estoppel barred enforcement noting that husband’s failure to tender his required income information led wife to accept a lesser amount of child support than she was entitled to. In re Marriage of Spangler and DeFauw, 2025 IL App (2d) 240303.
In re Marriage of Spangler and DeFauw - Post-judgment 508(b) fees upheld. In a post-judgment action where husband was found in indirect civil contempt for failure to pay over $70,000 in past due child support, the trial court ordered him to pay the full amount of wife’s requested 508(b) fee petition in the amount of $33,946.32. Husband appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed. The court conducted a fee hearing in which wife’s attorney submitted voluminous documents showing the services performed by the attorney, the time spent, and the hourly rate. The trial court found the hourly rate reasonable and the fee invoices fair and reasonable based on the arguments and issues presented. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding fees and the Court noted that an evidentiary hearing is not always necessary in order to determine reasonable attorneys’ fees and that husband was given the opportunity to challenge the amount of fees wife allegedly incurred.In re Marriage of Spangler and DeFauw, 2025 IL App (2d) 240303.
In re Marriage of Fangler and DeFauw