In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 185 N.E.3d 1269

Sandra Dahm-Schell and Mark Schell divorced; while the case was pending Mark inherited ~$615,000 (mostly in two IRAs) from his mother.
The dissolution judgment treated the inheritance as nonmarital and added only dividends from the inherited IRAs to Mark’s monthly income; it did not include mandatory IRA distributions.
Under the Internal Revenue Code Mark was required to take mandatory distributions (~$894.25/month), which he received and then reinvested in his own retirement account.
The circuit court declined to count those mandatory inherited-IRA distributions as income for child support and maintenance; Sandra sought reconsideration and certification under Ill. S. Ct. R. 308.
The appellate court reframed the certified question and held the mandatory distributions are “income” under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-3) and 5/505(a)(3) because the inherited funds had not been previously imputed; the Supreme Court affirmed and remanded for recalculation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are mandatory distributions/withdrawals from an inherited IRA (never previously imputed) "income" for child support/maintenance?	Dahm-Schell: Yes — statute’s broad “all income from all sources” includes these distributions.	Schell: No — funds already belonged to him; withdrawals are not a new gain or benefit.	Yes. Mandatory distributions are income when the principal was not previously imputed as income.
Does reinvesting mandatory distributions into the recipient’s own retirement account exclude them from “income”?	Dahm-Schell: Reinvestment is irrelevant; spendable benefit exists and counts as income.	Schell: Reinvested nonmarital funds are not income for support purposes.	Reinvestment does not exclude the distributions; they remain income under the Act.
When does the McGrath/double-counting rule apply (i.e., when withdrawals are not income)?	Dahm-Schell: No double counting here because the inheritance/distributions were never imputed.	Schell: McGrath controls — withdrawals from assets already owned are not income.	McGrath prevents double counting only if the asset/disbursement was previously imputed as income; here it was not, so McGrath does not bar counting distributions.

Rogers v. Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (definition and broad construction of “income” under the Act)
Mayfield v. Mayfield, 2013 IL 114655 (income includes gains/benefits that enhance a parent’s wealth)
McGrath v. McGrath, 2012 IL 112792 (withdrawal from an account previously considered imputed is not a new income to avoid double counting)
Schneider v. Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (prohibits double counting when setting support)
Zells v. Zells, 143 Ill. 2d 251 (duplicative valuation or counting of assets/income is improper)
Sharp v. Sharp, 369 Ill. App. 3d 271 (trust distributions as income for support)
Baumgartner v. Baumgartner, 384 Ill. App. 3d 39 (deferred compensation, pensions and similar payments may qualify as income)