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. 

Trial court’s equal (50/50) division of marital estate reversed. The First District held that the trial court abused its discretion by dividing the marital estate equally without properly considering and weighing that the wife was, and will continue to be, the sole caregiver and financial support for the parties’ permanently disabled adult son. The parties were married for more than 20 years during which time the wife earned a CTA pension, while the husband made both financial and nonfinancial contributions during the marriage. After trial, the court awarded the husband 50% of the wife’s pension and 50% of the equity in her home. The Appellate Court agreed that husband was entitled to a share of the marital estate and rejected wife’s arguments that based on his adultery, incarceration, and other misconduct, his share should be reduced. However, an equal division was inequitable because wife alone would bear the lifelong financial burden of caring for the parties’ disabled adult son as the evidence showed husband lacked the ability to contribute to his support. The Court ordered the judgment modified to reflect wife was awarded two-thirds of her CTA pension and two-thirds of the equity in her home and husband the remaining one-third. In re Marriage of Thomas, 2026 IL App (1st) 242491.
In re Marriage of Thomas

Rule 137 sanctions upheld in parentage matter. The Third District began its opinion with the following remark: “The parties have returned to this court with three more appeals, proving once again that, in domestic litigation, finality is sometimes more aspiration  than achievement.”  In a parentage case which has been on appeal on many issues during its lifetime, this matter involved three appeals by the mother: (1) two direct criminal contempt findings against mother’s attorney; (2) an award of Rule 137 sanctions against mother in favor of father; and (3) a series of post-trial motions.  The Court reversed the finding of direct criminal contempt holding that while mother’s counsel’s conduct was needlessly combative, it did not rise to the level of direct criminal contempt.  With respect to the motion for sanctions filed by father, the trial court conducted a two-day hearing on the motion and concluded that the multitude of post-trial motions by mother (approximately 30) were filed for the purposes of unnecessary delay and to needlessly increase the cost of the litigation.  The Third District upheld the award of $16,257 in attorneys’ fees against mother and her counsel in favor of father.  In doing so, the Court discussed the issue of the level of proof which is required in terms of a reasonable fee award and concluded that in this particular matter the trial court was so well versed in the case, the lawyers, the issues, and the time spent on the litigation that an evidentiary hearing was not needed.  In re Parentage of A.L.G., 2026 IL App (3d) 250124
In re Parentage of AL

Retroactive child support in parentage case should be awarded back to the date of service of summons. In an acrimonious parentage case (see Flash Point #2), the Court also reversed the award of retroactive child support and held that retroactive child support should commence from service of the pleading requesting child support, not from the filing of father’s earlier petition concerning parenting issues. Because mother’s counterpetition first sought child support, retroactivity was required from the date that pleading was served. Finally, the Court reversed the denial of mother’s request to add her surname to the child’s name because the trial court ruled on the request without conducting an evidentiary hearing. In re Parentage of A.L.G., 2026 IL App (3d) 250124
In re Parentage of ALG