Bloomington Law Group LLC

 

Statues and Case Law

Statutes:

THESE Illinois Statutes MAY AFFECT YOUR BLOOMINGTON ILLINOIS DIVORCE





Case Law:

These Recent Cases may Affect your Bloomington Illinois Divorce



In re Marriage of McGrath, 2012 IL 112792:  Money that an unemployed parent regularly withdraws from savings account may not be included in calculation of net income when setting child support under Section 505 of Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. If court determines that application of child support guidelines generates an inappropriate amount, including consideration of statutory factor of financial resources and needs of non-custodial parent, then court should make specific finding and adjust amount of child support ordered. (KILBRIDE, FREEMAN, GARMAN, KARMEIER, BURKE, and THEIS, concurring.)



In re Marriage of Perry, 
2012 IL App (1st) 113054: Court granted husband temporary custody of parties' three minor children and possession of home upon his oral request at hearing on wife's petition for temporary custody of children and temporary possession of home. Wife failed to object to his oral request and thus waived his failure to have pleadings on file on these issues. Court did not exceed its authority to determine justiciable issues. Court properly considered impact on parties' children of wife's work as an escort. (FITZGERALD SMITH and STERBA, concurring.)



In re Marriage of McLauchlan, 2012 IL App (1st) 102114: Although  the  trial court’s  finding that  the  decrease in  respondent’s income  warranted  a  modification  of  his  maintenance  obligation  was supported  by the  record,  the  determination  that  his  “gross  income” included money drawn from his retirement accounts was improper, since the parties had waived any interest in the other’s retirement benefits for purposes of maintenance in their settlement agreement, and under those circumstances, respondent’s withdrawals from his retirement accounts could not be considered in deciding whether to modify maintenance or change the award and allowing consideration of that factor would violate the parties’ original intent and constitute a modification of the settlement agreement; therefore, because the calculation of respondent’s arrears was based  on  income  that  erroneously included  withdrawals  from  his retirement accounts, the cause was remanded.



In re Marriage of Demaret, 2012 IL App (1st) 111916: Respondent’s pending petition for the attorney fees he would incur in connection with petitioner’s request to remove the parties’ children to New  Jersey did  not  preclude  the  appellate  court  from  considering petitioner’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of her request, and upon addressing the merits of petitioner’s challenge to the denial, the denial was affirmed based on the appellate court’s finding that petitioner failed to show that removal would be in the children’s best interests, especially when  there was  no  convincing  evidence  their  quality of  life  would improve, even though petitioner would earn a higher salary at her new job, the court concluded that the move would increase petitioner’s control over the children’s lives and could marginalize respondent’s relationship with them, respondent’s desire to maintain a close relationship with his children weighed against removal, and reasonable visitation could not be maintained.


In re Marriage of Kehoe, 2012 IL App (1st) 110644: Wife argued that since the amendment and change in the Pension Code rendered her QDRO void, the savings clause of the QDRO is triggered and requires the trial court to enter a QILDRO to effectuate the provisions of the original QDRO. The trial court did not refuse to comply with the QDRO’s savings clause when it denied wife's motion for entry of a QILDRO, because her QILDRO did not comply with the method of apportionment agreed upon in the parties’ marital settlement agreement and QDRO.  The terms of the martial settlement agreement and QDRO are binding upon the court, and the trial court cannot enter a QILDRO if it is not in accordance with the provisions of the original QDRO. The savings clause does not afford wife another opportunity to formulate a method of apportionment which will entitle her to a greater share of the pension benefits than what was originally agreed to in the parties’ martial settlement agreement and QDRO.  However, an appropriate qualified Illinois domestic relations order is required to direct the pension fund to pay Lauretta her share of the benefits.


In re Marriage of Petersen, 2011 IL 110984: An ex-wife’s petition for her children’s college expenses pursuant to the divorce decree’s reservation  clause sought  a modification which was subject to the statutory ban on retroactive support insofar as it requested prepetition expenses, but they could be looked to in determining whether she had depleted her financial resources for purposes of recalculating what percentage share the ex-husband should pay and what his obligation should be for postpetition educational expenses.


In re Marriage of O’Brien, 2011 IL 109039: A petition to substitute a judge for cause after a substantive ruling is properly evaluated by the statutory standard of actual prejudice, rather than by the standard of appearance of impropriety utilized in the Judicial Code in connection with judicial recusal.


In re Marriage of Goldsmith, 2011 IL App (1st) 093448: In postjudgment proceedings based on petitioner’s allegations that respondent failed to disclose certain assets, the trial court properly concluded that petitioner’s claims lacked merit and that she failed to act diligently in pursuing her motion to vacate the judgment that incorporated the parties’ settlement agreement, which acknowledged that in lieu of formal discovery, the parties represented that each had made complete disclosure of his or her property to the other.  


In re Marriage of Hluska, 2011 IL App (1st) 092636: In marriage dissolution proceedings, the trial court did not err in apportioning marital assets, awarding maintenance and awarding attorney fees to petitioner without first valuing certain marital and nonmarital assets, in reserving the allocation of petitioner’s credit card obligations, and in classifying respondent’s ownership interests in two corporations as marital assets.   


In re Marriage of Rice, 2011 IL App (1st) 103753:  On appeal from a trial court’s postjudgment orders in dissolution proceedings, the trial court’s modification of respondent’s child support obligation by setting a lump-sum obligation rendered inapplicable the reduction provision of the parties’ marital settlement agreement reducing respondent’s obligation by 24% as each child became emancipated and his support obligation was set at $700 per month until his youngest child was emancipated and mandatory interest accrued on his delinquent child support beginning on April 23, 1991, the most recent date in which an arrearage was calculated by the court. 


In re Marriage of Mathis, 2011 IL App (4th) 110301: The appellate court answered a certified question pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 as to the appropriate date for valuation of marital property in a bifurcated dissolution proceeding when a grounds judgment has been entered and there is a lengthy delay between the entry of the grounds judgment  and  the  hearing  on ancillary issues  by finding that  the appropriate date is the date of the trial on the property-distribution matter or some other date as close to the date of that trial as is practicable.


In re Marriage of Mathis, 2011 IL App (4th) 110301:The appellate court answered a certified question pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 308 as to the appropriate date for valuation of marital property in a bifurcated dissolution proceeding when a grounds judgment has been entered and there is a lengthy delay between the entry of the grounds judgment  and  the  hearing  on ancillary issues  by finding that  the appropriate date is the date of the trial on the property-distribution matter or some other date as close to the date of that trial as is practicable.


In re Marriage of Romano, 2012 IL App (2d) 091339: Court entered judgment for dissolution of marriage. Court's finding that no prima facie case of fraud on wife's marital rights remained, including as to husband's transfer of trusts, was not against manifest weight of evidence; trusts were not created proximate to husband's contemplation of divorce, and estate plan predated divorce by fix years. Court within its discretion in distributing marital assets; husband is in good health and has college degrees, and has significant nonmarital assets; wife has college degrees but has been homemaker since birth of first child. Court's maintenance order of $6,000 per month, and zero for child support, was not an unallocated award, and contravenes statutory right to modify child support. (JORGENSEN and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)