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.
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.
- Discovery limited in post-judgment modification proceeding when husbandadmitted he had the ability to pay any reasonable child support ordered. In a post-judgment child support modification proceeding filed by wife, the trial court denied wife’s discovery request for documents relating to husband’s substantial non-marital trust assets. While such documents could be relevant in a proceeding to modify child support, in this case, the documents would not have provided wife with any additional facts to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting a modification becausehusband admitted he could pay any reasonable amount the trial court ordered. The Appellate Court classified the admission by husband and his counsel at the evidentiary hearing as a judicial admission, and noted that such judicial admission did not prohibit husband from arguing the underlying merits that the requested increase was not warranted. In re Marriage of Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629.
- Trial court’s denial of post-judgment request for upward modification of child support reversed.Wife sought an increase of a $10,000 per month child support awardto $25,000 per month on the basis that since the entry of judgment husband’s income and net worth had substantially increased, and that he and the children were enjoying a substantially increased standard of living compared to the standard of living she could provide the children. Under the terms of the MSA,husband was 100% responsible for the two children’s health insurance premiums, uninsured medical and educational expenses, and 75% of childcare, extracurricular activity, and camp expenses. Wife also requested husband be responsible for 100% of those expenses going forward. The trial court denied the modification on the basis that: (1) Wife failed to demonstrate a substantial change of circumstances uncontemplated by the MSA; and (2) Wife failed to establish an increase in the children’s needs which warranted an increase in child support. The Appellate Court reversed. The MSA statedhusband’s income was between $600,000 and $1.6 million. At the time of the modification hearing his most recentannual incomeswere between 25% and 127% higher than the top end of the range set out in the MSA. The Court concluded, therefore, that they had not contemplated such a substantial increase. The Court also gave weight to a requirement in the MSA that the parties confirm their annual incomes to each other in writing via a third-party accountant. This requirement coupled with the stated income ranges of both parties at the time the MSA was signed could only mean that they understood the child support obligation could change in the event either of the party’s incomes were outside the ranges specified in the MSA. As such, the trial court erred when it ruled that wife failed to demonstrate a substantial change uncontemplated by the MSA. The trial court also erred when it ruled that wife failed to establish that there had been an increase in the children’s needs, and thus denied her motion for modification. The trial court should have also considered the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage not been dissolved. There was no dispute that husband’s substantial increase in income and enhanced lifestyle resulted in a disparity between the standard of living the children enjoyed between the two households. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings to determine whether husband’s child support obligation should be increased. The Court also ruled that at those proceedings the trial court shouldalso hear from wife’s expert witnesses as to the cost of the repairs and maintenance to her current home, which the trial court had barred at the original hearing. In re Marriage of Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629.
- Denial of petition for contribution to attorneys’fees in post-judgment matter reversed.In a post-judgment child support modification proceeding (See Flash Points #1 and #2), wife sought contribution to her attorneys’ fees which the trial court denied finding that her financial stability would not be undermined because she had the resources to pay her own fees. On appeal, the Court reversed and remanded the trial court to reconsider same in light of its holding on the merits of the motion for modification of support. In re Marriage of Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629.
- Denial of post-judgment petition for fees and petition for fees related to appeal reversed. Two years after entry of judgment, wife filed a petition for allocation of undisclosed marital assets which resulted in her receiving $130,196 due to husband failing to disclose certain stock options at the time the MSA was signed. Husband appealed the ruling and wife prevailed on appeal. Wife then filed a petition for fees against husband in the amount of $56,755 related to the underlying post-judgment action related to the undisclosed stock options and a second fee petition in the amount of $24,833 related to her successful appeal. The trial court denied both fee petitions but granted her a sum total of $10,000 due to wife having to file because husband had failed to comply with the judgment without compelling cause or justification. The trial court believed $10,000 was a reasonable amount. Wife filed a motion to reconsider which was also denied. On appeal the Court stated that when a trial court reduces the amount requested in a fee petition, the court’s ruling should include the reasons justifying a particular reduction. In this matter, the trial court did not make a finding as to how it reached the figure of $10,000. However, the record showed that at the motion to reconsider hearing,the trial court stated that it spoke to family law attorneys in the general vicinity and solicited various opinions which “pinned down” that a reasonable amount for the work done would be $10,000. This was improper and in error. Unnamed lawyers who did not testify and were not subject to cross examinationare an improper basis for a court’s determination. The Appellate Court vacated the trial court’s order and remanded for a new hearing. The Court also held that the trial court erred when it did not award 9% statutory interest pursuant to Section 2-1303 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In re Marriage of Hyman, 2024 IL App (2d) 230352.