In re Marriage of Connelly
145 N.E.3d 724
Ill. App. Ct.2020Background
- Stacy and Ryan Connelly divorced in 2015; the dissolution incorporated a Joint Parenting Agreement and Marital Settlement Agreement that named Stacy residential parent and required Ryan to pay $1,500/month child support (28% of his net on a $100,000 baseline) plus 28% of income over that baseline.
- The MSA awarded Stacy a Raymond James portfolio and life‑insurance proceeds (about $750,000) as her separate property; dividend payments from that portfolio produced additional income to Stacy that began in 2015.
- In 2016 the parties agreed to expanded parenting time for Ryan (more weekends, a weeknight, longer summer periods); by 2017 Ryan spent about 148 nights with the children (~45% parenting time), up from roughly 32% at dissolution.
- Ryan was promoted and his salary rose from $100,000 to $110,000; he petitioned in 2017 to modify child support, arguing his increased parenting time, his raise, and Stacy’s increased income (including dividends) constituted a substantial change in circumstances.
- The trial court granted Stacy’s directed finding and denied modification, concluding Ryan failed to show a substantial change: his 10% raise was contemplated by the MSA’s true‑up provision, Stacy’s income increases and dividends were known/anticipated, and Ryan’s additional parenting time did not show excessive or uncommon added costs.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding no reasonable person would find the changes (individually or collectively) were substantial enough to warrant modifying the pre‑2017 child support order or applying the amended income‑shares guidelines.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ryan) | Defendant's Argument (Stacy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a 10% pay increase is a substantial change warranting modification | Ryan: 10% raise increases ability to pay and supports recalculation | Stacy: MSA contains a true‑up requiring 28% of income over $100k; raise was contemplated | Not substantial; true‑up precludes modification based on the raise |
| Whether Stacy’s increased salary/dividend income is a substantial change | Ryan: Stacy’s income rose substantially (salary + dividends) so support should be reduced | Stacy: Increase was modest, dividends stem from separate inheritance known at settlement | Not substantial; increase was anticipated/insufficient to justify change |
| Whether increased parenting time justifies reducing child support | Ryan: More overnights mean greater expenses and reduced custodial costs, warranting reduction | Stacy: Additional costs are normal and not shown to be excessive or uncommon | Not substantial; increased time alone does not warrant reduction |
| Whether combined changes permit applying 2017 amended (income‑shares) guidelines | Ryan: Aggregate changes justify applying new guidelines to lower obligation | Stacy: Legislative amendment itself isn’t a substantial change; record lacks substantial change | Denied; no substantial change shown and statute prohibits relying on the amendment alone |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Garrett, 336 Ill. App. 3d 1018 (2003) (moving party bears burden; courts have wide latitude on substantial‑change findings)
- In re Marriage of Armstrong, 346 Ill. App. 3d 818 (2004) (10% salary increase not a substantial change)
- In re Marriage of Butler, 106 Ill. App. 3d 831 (1982) (small percentage increases in earnings do not automatically justify modification)
- In re Marriage of Rash, 406 Ill. App. 3d 381 (2010) (not all changes qualify as substantial for modification)
- In re Marriage of Singleteary, 293 Ill. App. 3d 25 (1997) (modification warranted only when equitable action is necessary to protect children’s best interests)
- In re Marriage of Riegel, 242 Ill. App. 3d 496 (1993) (courts may presume child‑raising costs increase as children grow)
- People ex rel. Stokely v. Goodenow, 221 Ill. App. 3d 802 (1991) (presumption that child’s needs rise with age and cost of living)
- In re Marriage of Demattia, 302 Ill. App. 3d 390 (1999) (increased parenting time alone does not justify reducing support absent excessive additional costs)
- In re Marriage of Plotz, 229 Ill. App. 3d 389 (1992) (moderate income increases for both parents do not constitute a substantial change)