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 increase in child support affirmed. Husband appealed the trial court’s order granting wife’s petition for increase in child support based on a substantial increase in husband’s post-judgment income. The original judgment required husband to pay $789 per month in child support plus 6% of any additional net income over $250,896 up to $500,000 with an annual true-up provision. The judgment also stated husband had no support obligation on any income over $500,000. At trial, husband’s earnings for the prior year were over $800,000. The trial court found the language of the judgment was voidable because it created a nonmodifiable cap on child support at $500,000 and there were no required statutory findings for any deviation from guideline support when setting such cap. The trial court also found a substantial change of circumstances had occurred and ordered husband to pay monthly support in the amount of $3,750 per month which was an upward deviation of guideline support. Husband appealed and the Appellate Court affirmed. It is well settled that parties may not contract to make child support non-modifiable and the $500,000 cap on income was not only non-modifiable, but it was also a deviation from the statutory guidelines without the written findings required by Section 505(a)(3.4) of the IMDMA. In this case, the parties’ combined incomes exceeded the highest guideline level, and therefore, the trial court acted within its discretion in setting support above the guideline maximum at $3,750 per month based on the statutory factors, including the children’s standard of living had the marriage not dissolved. In re Marriage of Patel, 2025 IL App (3d) 240453.
In re Marriage of Patel - Attorney fee award obtained in arbitration in dissolution action vacated due to lack of written engagement agreement. A law firm filed a final fee petition for setting of fees and costs against a former client in a dissolution action alleging it had an oral engagement agreement with the client. The firm sought recovery under the theories of quantum meruit and unjust enrichment. The trial court denied the client’s motion to dismiss and ordered arbitration where the law firm recovered $16,511 in fees. The client rejected the award, the trial court entered judgment and the client appealed. The Appellate Court reversed the judgment. A law firm may not pursue attorney fees against a former client under section 508(c) of the IMDMA absent a written engagement agreement, and that the lack of such a writing also bars recovery under quantum meruit within the dissolution action. The Court rejected the argument that section 508(c)(3)’s reference to quantum meruit eliminates the written-agreement requirement, explaining that quantum meruit applies only to determine fees not covered by the written contract—not to dispense with the contract altogether. Because the petition was improperly brought under the Act, the trial court erred in denying the client’s motion to dismiss and in entering judgment on the arbitration award. This decision underscores that attorneys without a written fee agreement must pursue any quantum meruit claim in a separate civil action, not within the dissolution case.In re Marriage of Stoltman and Lesure, 2025 IL App (3d) 240687
In re Marriage of Stoltman and Lesure - Temporary exclusive possession of the marital residence upheld. Husband filed for temporary exclusive possession of the marital residence during the pendency of the divorce case and the trial court granted the motion. Wife filed an interlocutory appeal which the Appellate Court heard because the order granting exclusive possession was injunctive relief. The Court affirmed the trial court’s order. Wife argued that the trial court should not have admitted the 604.10(b) report of Dr. Shapiro because he was not available for cross-examination. The record showed that wife did not subpoena Dr. Shapiro for testimony and the statute permits the court to review the report upon receipt. Although the trial court erred in admitting Dr. Shapiro’s report into evidence over wife’s objection without the expert being available for cross-examination, the error was harmless because the court was entitled to consider the expert’s opinions and ample other evidence in the record supported the trial court’s ruling. The record showed prolonged and severe family conflict, significant estrangement between wife and the children, and credible testimony from the Guardian ad litem and the husband that continued cohabitation was emotionally harmful to the children, even in the absence of physical abuse. Given the case’s duration, the children’s inability to escape the tense home environment, and the statutory focus on protecting mental well-being rather than requiring proof of a single abusive incident, the trial court acted properly in ordering wife to vacate the home pending final resolution. In re Marriage of Calcagno, 2025 IL App (3d) 250299.
In re Marriage of Calcagno