In re Marriage of Putzler, 985 N.E.2d 602

Parties divorced in 2005; Marguerite Petitioner has residential custody of two children, Dillon (b. 1995) and Cole (b. 1997).
Original support order provided $511/week plus two-thirds of certain child-related expenses; 2007 agreement increased monthly support to $2,500.
Petitioner testified post-2007 expenses rose due to home maintenance, utilities, autos, food, and school/tuition costs; she refinanced mortgage to cover debts and to pay off a home equity loan assigned to respondent.
Respondent, a dentist, argued his income supports continued lower-level increases; Coffey & Associates was retained to re-calculate respondent’s income for child support; Coffey added back certain business-related expenses to income.
Trial court granted the increase in support to $3,703/month (amended to $3,703, then corrected to $3,703) and later $3,703; court also awarded $3,125 in attorney fees for contempt actions.
Respondent appealed asserting lack of substantial change and challenging the fee award under section 508(b); appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances justifying increased child support	Putzler argues increased needs and petitioner’s increased income support modification	Putzler contends no sufficient change or credibility in income/needs evidence	Yes; court did not abuse discretion; substantial change supported by income rise and need increases.
Whether evidence supported an increase in the children’s needs	Putzler contends expenses for children increased and were credibly shown	Putzler argues lack of itemized amounts per expense undermines proof	Yes; court properly credited testimony of increased needs and Coffey’s analysis.
Whether attorney fees under 508(b) were properly imposed for contempt enforcement	Petzner argues fees improper because one contempt finding was not criminal and petitioner worked at law firm	Putzler claims no compelling cause justification and fees should not be imposed	Yes; fees proper as mandatory under 508(b) where contempt shown and cause/justification lacking.

In re Marriage of Lambdin, 245 Ill. App. 3d 797 (1993) (modification based on obligor’s increased ability to pay)
In re Marriage of Heil, 233 Ill. App. 3d 888 (1992) (increased ability to pay justifies modification)
In re Marriage of Sweet, 316 Ill. App. 3d 101 (2000) (elder-age/cost-of-living as basis for needs increase)
In re Marriage of Deike, 381 Ill. App. 3d 620 (2008) (contempt findings imply lack of compelling cause; supports 508(b) fees)
In re Marriage of Cierny, 187 Ill. App. 3d 334 (1989) (contempt findings support 508(b) sanctions)
In re Marriage of Dieter, 271 Ill. App. 3d 181 (1995) (wilful noncompliance equates to lack of compelling cause)
In re Marriage of Kolessar, 2012 IL App (1st) 102448 (2012) (contempt findings and 508(b) sanctions guidance)
In re Marriage of Magnuson, 156 Ill. App. 3d 691 (1987) (regarding 508(a) vs 508(b) scope; not controlling here)