In re Marriage of Petersen, 2011 IL 110984

Janet and Kevin Petersen married in 1983 and separated in 1996; dissolution judgment entered in 1999 with Janet having sole custody of three children.
The 1999 decree reserved the issue of each party’s obligation to contribute to the children’s college or education expenses under §513.
The parties incorporated a Custody and Visitation Agreement giving Janet final educational decision-making authority with Kevin to be consulted; the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the judgment.
In 2007 Janet petitioned to allocate college expenses for Gregory (Cornell), Ian (Wake Forest/UT), and Ellis (Cal Poly) and sought future college expenses for Ellis.
The circuit court awarded Kevin 75% of total college expenses, including past expenses; the appellate court partially affirmed and reversed, then the case reached the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that applying §510 to a reserved education issue is appropriate and remanded to recalculate Kevin’s share considering all relevant factors and potential depletion of Janet’s resources.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does §510 apply to reserved education expenses?	Petersen argues §510 does not apply to §513 education expenses.	Petersen contends §510 governs modifications of reserved issues, including education.	Yes; §510 governs modifications of reserved education issues.
Can pre-petition education expenses be awarded?	Janet seeks recovery of pre-petition expenses under the reserved issue.	Kevin argues pre-petition expenses are not modifiable retroactively.	No; retroactive modification barred; pre-petition expenses not awardable.
Was the 75% share of education expenses proper?	Janet contends a fair allocation may be different given reserved-issue context.	Kevin argues the court’s discretion under §513 supports a substantial share for him.	The court reversed and remanded to recalculate, indicating the 75% allocation was improper as initially determined.
What factors govern postdecree educational expense allocations on remand?	Allocation should reflect all reasonable and necessary factors, including resources depleted by prior college costs.	Allocation should follow §513(b) factors with equity as the guiding standard.	Remand to recalculate using §513(b) factors and intact equities.

In re Marriage of Sreenan, 81 Ill. App. 3d 1025 (1980) (treats §513 expenses as child support to be read with §505)
In re Marriage of Coram, 86 Ill. App. 3d 845 (1980) (considers education expenses under §513 as child support)
In re Marriage of Waller, 339 Ill. App. 3d 743 (2003) (references §513 education expenses as support-related)
In re Marriage of Truhlar, 404 Ill. App. 3d 176 (2010) (notes relationship of §510 with education expenses)
Nerini v. Nerini, 140 Ill. App. 3d 848 (1986) (discusses reservation as modification; in rem vs in personam)
Conner v. Watkins, 158 Ill. App. 3d 759 (1987) (reservation of support issues and retroactive modification context)
Sommer v. Borovic, 69 Ill. 2d 220 (1977) (retention of jurisdiction to modify for children's care)
In re Madison H., 215 Ill. 2d 364 (2005) (interpretation of Illinois Marriage and Dissolution Act principles)