In re Marriage of Chee
952 N.E.2d 1252
Ill. App. Ct.2011Background
- This case concerns whether a Section 513(a)(2) petition to share undergraduate educational expenses may be adjudicated after the child has graduated.
- The two children completed undergraduate degrees at Loyola University Chicago in May 2008 and May 2009, with no prior contribution from Samuel.
- Nelia filed a petition on June 1, 2010 seeking one-third of the children’s college costs.
- The trial court dismissed the petition as untimely under the “terminates when the child receives a baccalaureate degree” language.
- The appellate court held the statute governs what expenses may be awarded, not when petitions are filed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its interpretation.
- The decision clarifies that section 513 authorizes undergraduate expenses but not post-baccalaureate education unless the child is disabled and not emancipated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 513(a)(2) authorizes adjudication after graduation. | Nelia argues the statute governs the award of undergraduate expenses and permits post-graduation petitions. | Samuel argues the language creates a deadline, precluding adjudication once a degree is awarded. | Statute governs the “what,” not the “when”; petitions may be adjudicated for undergraduate expenses after graduation; post-baccalaureate education is generally not covered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kujawinski v. Kujawinski, 71 Ill. 2d 563 (Ill. 1978) (legitimate legislative purpose to minimize economic and educational disadvantages in divorced families)
- In re Marriage of Truhlar, 404 Ill. App. 3d 176 (Ill. App. 2010) (courts balance breadth of education necessity; no hard-and-fast rule)
- In re Logston, 103 Ill.2d 266 (Ill. 1984) (statutory interpretation considerations; future consequences)
- In re Mary Ann P., 202 Ill. 2d 393 (Ill. 2002) (avoid absurd or unjust results in interpretation)
- Petersen v. Petersen, 403 Ill. App. 3d 839 (Ill. App. 2010) (discusses timing of petitions relative to final judgments)
- In re Bennett, 306 Ill. App. 3d 246 (Ill. App. 1999) (considerations about when petitions are properly deemed pending)
- In re Leopando, 96 Ill. 2d 114 (Ill. 1983) (treatment of unresolved ancillary issues in dissolution proceedings)
- In re Marriage of Kates, 198 Ill. 2d 156 (Ill. 2001) (statutory interpretation giving primacy to plain meaning)