In re Marriage of Pratt
17 N.E.3d 678
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Parties divorced in 2007 with an MSA that set unallocated maintenance/family support of $4,400/month for 48 months and included a clause excluding restricted stock/options awarded as marital property from child-support income.
- After Sharon began cohabitating (and later marrying) Kevin Count, she filed to modify child support in May 2010; trial court held hearings in 2011 and entered an amended order in July 2012 increasing Murray’s child support obligation.
- Trial court found Murray’s 2011 gross income was $254,267 (net income for support purposes $176,146) based on salary, bonus, dividends, IRA distributions/conversion, vested restricted stock and option exercises; set guideline support and added flat contributions for daughters’ activities and orthodontia (80%).
- Court made the modified support retroactive to the May 19, 2010 filing date of the modification petition and allocated certain reimbursements between the parties.
- Sharon sought contribution to attorney fees; after hearing the court awarded Sharon $25,000 under 750 ILCS 5/508(a), finding she could not pay full fees while Murray had substantially greater ability to pay and had overstated expenses.
Issues
| Issue | Sharon's Argument | Murray's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly calculated Murray’s income for child support | Use Murray’s 2011 income and include dividends, IRA conversion, stock option sales to reflect current economic situation | Court should have used 2010 income or excluded nonrecurring/noncash items (Roth conversion, one-time dividends) | Court did not abuse discretion; 2011 was proper focus and trial court may estimate or include such items as income for support purposes |
| Whether court should have considered Sharon’s new husband’s resources | Sharon: new husband contributes to household expenses and no commingling shown | Murray: wife’s husband reduces Sharon’s need so his income should offset support | Waived on appeal; record shows no evidence of pooling/commingling, so court properly declined to impute Count’s income |
| Whether restricted stock/options awarded as marital property may be treated as income for child support | Sharon: court may consider proceeds as income when received | Murray: MSA barred treating awarded restricted stock/options as income (would be unfair / "double dipping") | Provision in MSA excluding such income is void as against public policy; court may include proceeds from sale/exercise as income for child support |
| Whether trial court abused discretion in awarding $25,000 in attorney fees to Sharon | Sharon: cannot pay full fees; disparity in incomes and discovery conduct justify contribution | Murray: Sharon has resources and MSA required each party to pay own fees | Court found Sharon unable to pay full fees and Murray able to pay more; $25,000 contribution was within court’s discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Marriage of Rogers, 213 Ill. 2d 129 (focus for income is party’s economic situation when support calculated)
- In re Marriage of Colangelo, 355 Ill. App. 3d 383 (marital property proceeds may be treated as income for child support)
- In re Marriage of Mayfield, 2013 IL 114655 (nonrecurring payments may be considered income but trial court may consider deviations)
- In re Marriage of Schneider, 214 Ill. 2d 152 (party seeking fees must show inability to pay; other party’s ability to pay is relevant)
- In re Marriage of Breitenfeldt, 362 Ill. App. 3d 668 (trial court’s child-support income findings reviewed for abuse of discretion)