In re Marriage of Blume
59 N.E.3d 135
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Tami and Brad Blume divorced after a long marriage; they have one child born in 1996 who was approaching emancipation when the court ruled.
- Brad worked as a farmhand earning about $42,000/year and received housing and a work vehicle from his employer; he had previously earned $70K+ annually from independent farming in 2009–2010 but stopped farming after separation.
- Tami worked as a CNA earning about $10.60/hour (~$18,000/year in 2012), lived in discounted housing from her father, and sought further schooling to become an RN.
- Trial court found Brad voluntarily stopped farming to reduce his support obligation, imputed farming income to him, valued Brad’s in-kind employment benefits at $1,500/month, awarded rehabilitative maintenance of $2,000/month (reviewable in 3 years), and set child support at $600/month.
- Brad appealed, arguing child support was set below statutory guidelines, farming income should not have been imputed, and the $2,000/month maintenance award was excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Brad's Argument | Tami's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child support amount | Trial court should have applied statutory guideline (20% of net); with imputed benefits/farming support should be higher (up to ~$1,782.50/mo) | Parties had previously agreed approximately to the lower amount; child support of $600/month reasonable given maintenance award and short remaining obligation | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in deviating from guideline and setting $600/mo in light of maintenance and circumstances |
| Imputation of farming income | Farming income was not guaranteed, Brad stopped farming for valid reasons (bad 2012 crop year); no proof he refused specific farming opportunities | Brad quit farming to minimize income after separation; trial court found his testimony not credible | Court affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in imputing farming income because it found Brad voluntarily discontinued farming to evade support |
| Maintenance award amount | $2,000/mo was excessive; Tami failed to reasonably pursue education earlier; tax refunds/child support should reduce maintenance | Maintenance appropriate given marriage length, income disparity, Tami’s delayed career and need for retraining | Court affirmed: $2,000/mo rehabilitative maintenance was not excessive and was within trial court discretion |
| Treatment of Tami’s tax refunds and credits | Brad argued Tami’s 2012 tax refund (~$9,863) or credits should count as income to reduce maintenance | Tami argued refunds/credits (EITC, ACTC, overwithholding) are government benefits or nonrecurring and should not reduce Brad’s maintenance obligation | Court held: tax refund overwithholding already reflected in gross income; refundable credits (EITC, ACTC) are intended to aid low-income custodial parents and are not properly added to reduce maintenance obligation |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Scafuri, 203 Ill. App. 3d 385 (trial court’s child support award reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (statutory child support guidelines and allowable deviations)
- In re Marriage of Lichtenauer, 408 Ill. App. 3d 1075 (imputing income for maintenance; consider prospective earning ability)
- In re Marriage of Garrett, 336 Ill. App. 3d 1018 (trial court’s income findings for support reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Cerven, 317 Ill. App. 3d 895 (trial court credibility determinations accorded deference)
- In re Marriage of Ackerley, 333 Ill. App. 3d 382 (treatment of tax returns and refunds in income calculations)
- In re Marriage of Pylawka, 277 Ill. App. 3d 728 (adding back tax overwithholding when determining net income)
- In re Marriage of Harlow, 251 Ill. App. 3d 152 (purpose and use of rehabilitative maintenance)
- In re Marriage of Hucker, 259 Ill. App. 3d 551 (rehabilitative maintenance considerations)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (standard of review for maintenance awards)