The appeal of an award of maintenance is barred where the defendant’s acceptance of the benefits of the divorce decree which would distinctly disadvantage the plaintiff upon any redetermination of those rights. In re Lawver
It was unnecessary for the court to make any findings as to matters on the economic circumstances of the parties since the date the judgment of dissolution was entered where the record reflected that following the remand order no extraordinary circumstances had arisen. In re Jones
Failure to Reserve Right to Modification
A court can modify a maintenance order when the order sought to be modified does not expressly reserve the right of the court to review that order at some future time. In re Carpel
The Illinois General Assembly, in moving the “due notice” phrase from one location to another, changed the law as it had been previously interpreted by this state’s judiciary, the filing date of the modification petition is no longer the earliest point to which a retroactive modification of maintenance or support payments may be ordered; rather, consistent with the Federal mandate, the earliest point to which retroactive modification of maintenance or support payments may be ordered is the date on which the non-moving party receives “due notice” from the moving party of the filing of the modification petition. In re Hawking
Foreign Court’s Modification
One state must recognize a sister state’s judgment to the degree that it is non-modifiable, and the second forum must apply the first forum’s law to determine the extent of modification; thus, to determine the degree to which an Illinois decree is modifiable, the foreign court should refer to this section. Sullivan v. Sullivan
Guardian and Litem
___Abuse of Discretion
An appointment of a guardian ad litem for a child who was not a party to modification of child support action and without an evidentiary showing of the need for a guardian was an abuse of the trial court’s discretionary power. Robin v. Robin
Indefinite Maintenance
Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding indefinite maintenance where trial court concluded that it was unlikely wife would be to increase her income to a level approaching her husband’s. In re Minear
Womens Divorce Lawyers
Termination of maintenance may not be effected prior to the date a petitioner received notice a petition had been filed. In re Frasco
A determination of the effective date of termination is a matter within the court’s discretionary authority. In re Frasco
The termination of maintenance on the basis of the payee’s cohabitation with another on a resident, continuing conjugal basis became effective when the petition for termination was filed. In re Stanley
A provision in a dissolution judgment for the payment of a child’s college expenses is a term in the nature of child support, and the circuit court therefore retains jurisdiction to modify such a provision at any time pursuant to 750 ILCS 5/502 and this section, regardless of whether the provision was ordered by the court under 750 ILCS 5/513 or incorporated into the judgment as a result of a settlement agreement. In re Loffredi
Where an institution was not a “college” as that term was contemplated under the marital settlement agreement, the trial court’s award of four months” additional post majority child support pursuant to the marital settlement agreement was against the language of the marital settlement agreement. In re Leming
Although defendant no longer practiced medicine, evidence concerning his financial condition reflected that he retained a substantial income from his investments and did not demonstrate that would have prohibited the trial court from ordering that defendant provide additional educational support for his child; thus, the manifest weight of the evidence did not reflect that the college expenditures were excessive or otherwise unreasonable. Hardling v. Harding
Defendant’s contention that an obligation for the payment of educational expenses should only be imposes on him after it was studies was without merit. Harding v. Harding
Child support payments may properly be abated or reduced where an inability to pay results from involuntary loss of employment, but such relief should be temporary in nature in the sense that the petitioning party should be required within a reasonable time to establish that continued unemployment was in good faith; i.e., was the result of mental or physical disability or unsuccessful attempts to obtain other employment. Glass v. Peitchel
Divorce Lawyers Los Angeles
Reduction of income was the type of substantial change in circumstances contemplated by subsection (a) and thus it was error for the trial court to decline to modify in maintenance award. In re Izzo
Because the terms of the judgment did not incorporate the terms of a settlement agreement pursuant to 75 ILCS 5/502 (f), the court had power to modify the maintenance award. In re Bryant
Modification of maintenance was appropriate where the husband presented evidence that he had chosen to cease working upon the advice of his physician and following heart pains significant enough to cause his hospitalization and his business required work seven days a week. In re Coloumbo
Although the ancillary order limited termination of maintenance to the conditions therefore in this section, it made no express reference to any conditions precluding modification as to the amount of maintenance and, therefore, did not preclude modification. In re Scott
Modification of maintenance provisions of a 1975 settlement agreement was allowed using the standards of this section, even though enacted after 1975. Ingrassia v. Ingrassia.
Where an option concerning disposition of a home required respondent to pay monthly rent to petitioner, the award was a form of maintenance which the court could not allow where petitioner was cohabiting with another. In re Combs
Womens Divorce Lawyers
A party cannot stop or reduce his child support payments unless the trial court has approved the modification. In re Ingram
Though the father’s income had drastically diminished, his standard of living had not and the court was apprehensive about reducing the father’s $550 pre month support obligation where he had not seen fit to reduce his discretionary expenses. In re Burris
Where original dissolution agreement stated husband (petitioner) was to pay mortgage until date of sale of home, trial court’s the mortgage payments until the date of the sale of the home was thus clearly in violation of subsection (a) of this section. In re Pitts
Past-due installments of child support are the vested right of the designated recipient; thus, the court lacks the authority to modify those amounts that have already accrued. In re Erickson
The trial court would not reverse a concededly adequate award of maintenance and child support based on a hypothetical and highly speculative argument regarding the possible future increase in the reasonable needs of petitioner or the minor children; should those needs in fact increase, petitioner could simply seek modification of the judgment by direct motion to the trial court. In re Wilder
The portions of the circuit court’s orders which modified the provision of the judgment of divorce concerning Bar Mitzvah expenses was reversed, because the settlement unambiguously stated that defendant would pay for the party. In re Roth
While the appeal of a prior order was still pending, and the trial court changed the order by specifically adding the following: (1) “that the only material change it could consider would be the termination of plaintiff’s social security benefits, and (2) that there was no substantial change in defendant’s income since November 26, 1975 order,” the trial curt did not have authority to modify its order after a notice of appeal from such order had been filed. Dunn v. Dunn
Modification of a separation agreement was not permitted where a father was not attempting to relieve himself of his obligation of support when he entered into a property settlement agreement, but on the contrary, when he promised to pay the costs of his daughter’s college tuition, and expenses for a scholastic year, without contribution by the plaintiff and without a determination of his ability to pay he was contracting to do more than the law required of him; the property settlement agreement was founded upon sufficient consideration; and the father sought a reduction of his obligation with no reciprocal officer on his part to restore the property rights which the mother released to him. The court could not release one of the contracting parties from terms actually agreed upon but later found disadvantageous when the party had already enjoyed the benefits of the agreement. Gaddis v. Gaddis
Womens Divorce Lawyers
An increase in the child’s needs can be presumed on the basis that the child has grown older and the cost of living has risen. People ex rel. Stokely v. Goodenow
If a former spouse’s increased ability to pay is shown, the fact that the child receiving support has grown older and the cost of living has risen are proper bases for establishing increased need under this section. In re Boyden
See Divorce Lawyers Dallas
Effective Date
Any proceedings commenced subsequent to the effective date of subsection (b) of this section to modify alimony or maintenance is governed by its provisions. Kowalski v. Kowalski
___Computation
The trial court’s reliance on a retroactive application when computing support arrearage created error because trial court could not provide for reduction in father’s support payments. In re Jobe
___Waiver
Although a court cannot reduce the amount owing on past-due installments of child support, in a proper case the court can give effect to an agreement by a party to waive the payments or accept a lesser amount. Anderson v. Anderson
___Ability to Pay
The increased ability of the obligor parent alone can justify an increase in child support. In re Heil
___Application
Subsection (a) of this section governed cases in which the trial court was making an initial determination of child support or an initial award of child support and maintenance, not, as occurred in the case at bar, the termination of maintenance and the modification of child support; therefore, plaintiff, who met her burden of establishing a substantial change in circumstances, was entitled to some increase in support payments. Deardeuff v. Deardeuff
___Authority of Old Case Law
Since subsection (a) of this section codifies previous case law by requiring a showing of a substantial change in circumstances before a support order can be modified, cases determined prior to the new Act are relevant in determining what disposition should be made with respect to child support cases. Spencer v. Spencer
___Burden of Proof
In a case arising out of the construction and application of an agreement incorporated into the parties’ divorce decree, the appellate court determined that further proceedings were required to determine whether the former wife had established changed circumstances warranting an increase in child support; the former husband had carried his burden of showing that changed circumstances warranted an adjustment in procedures regarding the son’s medical expenses, but further proceedings were required to determine how the procedures should be implemented. Turrell v. Turrell
The payor spouse is not relieved of demonstrating changed circumstances; rather, the lack of good-faith effort to achieve financial independence may, if proved, constitute the changed circumstances necessary for modification; this distinction is important due to the burden of proof. In re Lenkner
A modification may only be had upon the showing of a “substantial change” in circumstances. In re Olsen
After the threshold question of whether a substantial change in circumstances has occurred is answered, then and only then may the court determine the amount of the increase in child support. In re Heil
The burden of demonstrating a substantial change in circumstances is on the party seeking modification. In re Lyons
In order to obtain relief under either this section or 750 ILCS 5/610, a petitioner must show a change in circumstances from the situation which existed at the time the original order was entered; in both cases, relief may be necessary while an appeal is pending but the appellate court cannot grant such relief because its only power to change the effect of the judgment on appeal is that to stay the enforcement of the judgment. In re Spangler
To receive increased support pursuant to a modification of settlement agreements, a moving party must show that the children have grown older and the cost of living has risen if , at the same time the moving party can also demonstrate an increased ability on the part of the defendant to pay. In re Helfrich
Modification of child support may be made only upon a showing of substantial change in circumstances. In re Schmerold
In order to establish a substantial change in circumstances the petitioning party must show an increased ability of the supporting spouse to pay and increased needs of the children since the previous order. In re Schmerold
More Info: Divorce Lawyers San Diego
Although this section provides that the obligation to pay child support generally terminates upon emancipation, this does not mean that after emancipation the custodial parent is not entitled to child support arrearages. In re Homan
See: Divorce Lawyers Phoenix
