In re Marriage of O'Hare
79 N.E.3d 712
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Marriage dissolved in 2010; custody order gave O’Hare 56% and Stradt 44% of parenting time (alternating weekends plus every-other-Tuesday evening and alternating midweek overnights).
- In August 2016, Stradt (pro se) filed a motion to modify parenting time seeking to shift from every-other-Tuesday plus every-other-Wednesday-overnight to every Wednesday–Friday morning, increasing his time by ~6% to a 50/50 split.
- O’Hare moved to dismiss under section 2-615, arguing Stradt pleaded only conclusions (no change-in-circumstances or factual support) and that the requested change was not a “minor modification” under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(e)(2).
- The trial court granted O’Hare’s motion to dismiss, holding an additional overnight every 14 days (the requested change) was not a “minor modification.”
- Stradt appealed, arguing the court failed to accept well-pleaded facts and misapplied statutory construction to the term “minor modification.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (O'Hare) | Defendant's Argument (Stradt) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in granting a 2-615 dismissal by failing to accept all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences | O’Hare: Stradt’s motion contained only conclusory statements and no specific factual allegations; court may disregard legal conclusions | Stradt: The motion alleged the 6% increase was a minor modification and in the child’s best interest; those allegations must be accepted on a 2-615 motion | Held: No error — court may disregard conclusory legal assertions; Stradt alleged conclusions without supporting facts, so dismissal was proper. |
| Whether the requested change (one extra overnight every 14 days; 6% increase shifting to 50/50) qualifies as a “minor modification” under 750 ILCS 5/610.5(e) | O’Hare: The change is substantive (moves to equal parenting time) and not minor; statute favors finality and continuity | Stradt: The change is small (6%), advances statutory purposes (child’s best interests, parental involvement) and should be a minor modification allowing modification without a substantial change in circumstances | Held: Not minor. Court interpreted “minor modification” by plain meaning (small/inconsequential) and refused to characterize a shift from primary custody to equal parenting time as minor; affirmed dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blumenthal v. Brewer, 69 N.E.3d 834 (Illinois 2016) (standard of review and principles for 2-615 motions)
- In re N.C., 12 N.E.3d 23 (Illinois 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo; plain-meaning approach)
- Patrick Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 976 N.E.2d 318 (Illinois 2012) (courts need not accept conclusory allegations without supporting facts)
- In re Marriage of Wycoff, 639 N.E.2d 897 (Ill. App. Ct.) (policy favoring finality and continuity in parenting plans)