In re Marriage of Benink
113 N.E.3d 576
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Suzette and Eric Benink divorced in 2010; dissolution incorporated a property settlement requiring Eric to pay $2,431 biweekly and 40% of any bonuses/extra pay as child support, and to provide annual sworn income statements and W-2s by April 15.
- Eric accepted a new job in late 2012 and received a $30,000 signing bonus (and earned ~$6,616 in consulting); he did not disclose those amounts to Suzette and delayed providing annual financial statements until after she filed a petition in 2013.
- Suzette filed petitions in 2013 seeking modification of child support (based on increased income), contempt for nondisclosure/nonpayment of 40% on bonuses, and educational expenses. Eric filed a contemporaneous rule to show cause and asked to reduce child support.
- The trial court (in 2016) applied the 2016 revised Act, performed a ‘‘look‑back’’ and imposed a modified support figure for 2013 but repeatedly applied a 20% threshold for modifying support in later years; it also found Eric’s earlier nondisclosure/nonpayment was not willful and denied contempt and attorney fees.
- The appellate court held the 2016 Act did not apply to these 2013 modification petitions, found the trial court erred by repeatedly applying the 20% threshold and by declining to find Eric in contempt, adjusted the arrearage calculation, vacated post‑June 2016 support orders (remanding recalculation), and remanded the contempt/attorney‑fees issues for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Suzette or Benink as applicable) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Which version of the Act applies to 2013 modification petitions | Suzette argued the court should apply the law governing modification petitions pending on the Act’s effective date only if no prior judgment existed on the issue (i.e., old Act applies here) | Eric argued the court could apply the new 2016 Act to pending proceedings | Held: The new Act did not apply; section 801(c) controls modification of pre‑2016 judgments and the petitions were filed in 2013, so the prior law governs |
| 2) May the trial court repeatedly apply the 20% guideline threshold to deny or alter modifications during a multi‑year look‑back | Suzette argued the 20% shortcut is limited and was misapplied repeatedly | Eric argued the court properly used the 20% rule to decline subsequent adjustments | Held: Repeated application was error—(a) the 20% shortcut applies only where a party receives public‑aid enforcement services and (b) it is a threshold for whether to modify, not a repeated step when fixing amounts over the look‑back period |
| 3) Was Eric guilty of indirect civil contempt for failing to provide financials and for not paying 40% on bonuses | Suzette argued Eric willfully violated the dissolution order, concealed bonus income, caused underpayments, and forced her to incur attorney fees | Eric claimed failures were inadvertent, he believed he could reduce bonus payments after a child graduated, and he lacked intent to defy the order | Held: Trial court’s no‑willfulness finding was reversed as against the manifest weight; nondisclosure/nonpayment was unjustified and remanded to determine 40% of additional 2012 net income and attorney fees under section 508(b) |
| 4) Should the $30,000 signing bonus (and consulting income) be treated/deducted from income for child support or offset by home‑sale loss | Suzette sought child‑support on those amounts; Eric argued the signing bonus compensated for home‑sale loss and should be offset/deducted | Eric contended bonus was not the type of ‘‘additional money’’ covered; also argued loss on sale was a deductible expense | Held: Trial court failed to address the signing bonus; appellate court rejected the asset‑loss deduction argument as unsupported and remanded for determination of 40% of additional 2012 net income (trial court to compute net) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. John Deere Insurance Co., 208 Ill. 2d 38 (Ill. 2003) (plain‑language statutory construction governs)
- Samour, Inc. v. Board of Election Commissioners, 224 Ill. 2d 530 (Ill. 2007) (reviewing manifest‑weight standard and scope of review)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill. 2009) (statutes must be construed to avoid rendering any part meaningless)
- In re Michael D., 2015 IL 119178 (Ill. 2015) (courts must follow plain statutory language and not read in conflicting limitations)