In re Marriage of Salvatore
2019 IL App (2d) 180425
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Parties divorced in 2015; MSA/JPA incorporated into dissolution judgment. Three children live primarily with Brenda; Daniel agreed to pay $8,100/month (32% of his net income) in child support.
- At dissolution Brenda was unemployed but had prior work history as a nurse/office worker; MSA did not factor her future earnings into the child support line item.
- Illinois amended section 505 in 2017 to an "income shares" model that factors both parents’ incomes; section 510 was amended to permit application of the new 505 only upon a finding of a substantial change in circumstances (the enactment alone is not a substantial change).
- Daniel filed to modify child support in Nov. 2017, arguing his obligation should be reduced by counting Brenda’s new employment income (Brenda’s gross monthly income ≈ $3,451).
- Trial court denied modification: it found Daniel’s claimed income decline unproven and held Brenda’s employment income could not furnish a substantial change because the parties contemplated her future employment when negotiating the MSA/JPA; alternatively, Brenda’s income was too small to be substantial. Appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Salvatore (Daniel) Argument | Salvatore (Brenda) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brenda’s new income may be considered to show a substantial change in circumstances that would permit applying the 2017 section 505 amendments to a pre-amendment order | Brenda earned no income at dissolution; any later income is a change relevant to modification under section 510 | Parties contemplated Brenda’s future employment in MSA/JPA; her income was not excluded originally so it cannot be the basis for modification | Court: No; parties contemplated Brenda’s employment (MSA/JPA provisions), so her income is not a substantial change permitting modification |
| Whether Brenda’s current income, even if considered, is a substantial change warranting downward modification | Even small custodial income now, when combined under new guidelines, reduces Daniel’s obligation substantially | Brenda’s income is relatively small compared to Daniel’s and not a substantial change; legislative amendment alone is not a basis | Court: No; even if considered, Brenda’s income is insufficient to constitute a substantial change |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Hughes, 322 Ill. App. 3d 815 (appellate court) (increase or change in income does not constitute a substantial change where court contemplated the change at dissolution)
- Blum v. Koster, 235 Ill. 2d 21 (Ill.) (marital settlement agreements are construed like other contracts; intent derived from the instrument as a whole)
- Mulry v. Mulry, 314 Ill. App. 3d 756 (appellate court) (no substantial change when parties contemplated the circumstances at agreement formation)
- Reynard v. Reynard, 378 Ill. App. 3d 997 (appellate court) (courts reluctant to find a substantial change where trial court expected the financial change)
- Schurtz v. Schurtz, 382 Ill. App. 3d 1123 (appellate court) (when ambiguous, parties’ intent may be determined by examining surrounding facts and circumstances)