In Re Marriage of Anderson and Murphy
938 N.E.2d 207
Ill. App. Ct.2010Background
- Michael and Molly married in 1993; twins Janelle and Kaleigh born in 1994.
- Michael earned income in finance and held nonmarital AEC Holding Company stock; Molly worked at Caterpillar, later on disability with social security benefits.
- Custody awarded to Molly in 2002; dissolution finalized in 2004 with a stipulated visitation schedule.
- September 2004 supplemental judgment reserved child support and maintenance; stock treated as nonmarital for maintenance; required annual income tax return information sharing; 60/40 split for medical expenses.
- December 2006 order set maintenance at $900/month and child support at 28% of Michael's net income; ongoing disputes over support and maintenance followed.
- September 2008-2009 hearings addressed Michael’s stock split from AEC, gifting/bonuses as income, and modifications to support, medical expenses, and attorney fees; court issued postdissolution orders affecting income reporting and tax returns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the AEC stock split proceeds are income for child support | Murphy contends proceeds are income under 505(a)(3) because they increase wealth and support ability. | Anderson argues stock proceeds are property, not income, since the stock was nonmarital and sale produced a capital loss. | Stock proceeds not income; remand on maintenance and related orders |
| Whether gifts from Michael's parents should be included as income | Murphy seeks inclusion of substantial parental gifts/loans as income under 505(a)(3). | Anderson argues gifts are not income and should not be included. | Gifts should be included; remand for income calculation отражая gifts |
| Whether bonuses/commissions should be included in net income | Murphy asserts 28% of bonuses should be treated as child support despite non-guarantee. | Anderson argues bonuses are not guaranteed but may be included if earned. | Bonuses/commissions must be included; remand to apply 28% for any earned bonuses |
| Whether to modify maintenance and child support calculations in light of stock proceeds | Murphy argues maintenance should reflect stock-sale impact on income. | Anderson contests modification absent guaranteed income from stock. | Remand for reconsideration of maintenance in light of stock proceeds |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill.2d 129 (2004) (income includes varied sources; gifts and similar benefits can be income)
- Einstein v. Nijim, 358 Ill.App.3d 263 (2005) (bonus income should be included in net income for child support)
- In re Marriage of O'Daniel, 382 Ill.App.3d 845 (2008) (IRA withdrawals are not income; only earnings/appreciation may be income)
- In re Marriage of Colangelo, 355 Ill.App.3d 383 (2005) (stock-based income can be income for support purposes)
- In re Marriage of Baungartner, 384 Ill.App.3d 39 (2008) (proceeds from property transactions can be treated as income in some contexts)
- In re Marriage of Worrall, 334 Ill.App.3d 550 (2002) (income defined as gain or profit; includes returns on labor or capital)
- Deem v. Deem, 328 Ill.App.3d 453 (2002) (net income determinations for child support are within trial court discretion and reviewed de novo)