In re Marriage of Sorokin
2017 IL App (2d) 160885
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Natasha (petitioner) and Aron Sorokin (respondent) divorced; judgment entered April 13, 2015, awarding joint custody and setting child support based on respondent’s Allstate salary plus income imputed from his business A&N (trial found A&N net income ~$78,000; total net income ~$152,000; support set at 32% = $4,053.33/month, retroactive to Feb. 28, 2014).
- Later, Aron filed (Jan. 29, 2016) a petition to reduce child support, alleging A&N had ceased operation and his only income was his Allstate salary (~$96,000/year), making the current support unaffordable.
- Petitioner moved to dismiss under section 2-619(a)(4), arguing res judicata/collateral attack because the change allegedly predated the dissolution judgment; trial court denied the motion as untimely and proceeded to evidence.
- At the reduction hearing, the court credited Aron’s testimony that A&N was no longer generating income and that he ceased operating it in good faith before the hearing; the court found a substantial change in circumstances as of Jan. 29, 2016, and reduced support to 32% of his Allstate net pay, retroactive to Feb. 1, 2016.
- Petitioner appealed, arguing (1) the change occurred before the judgment (so no post-judgment change), and (2) Aron closed A&N in bad faith and income should be imputed; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Natasha) | Defendant's Argument (Aron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court should have dismissed Aron's petition under res judicata / section 2-619 | Motion to dismiss; reduction petition was a collateral attack on the dissolution judgment because the changed circumstances predated the judgment | Petition sought prospective modification based on circumstances as of Jan. 29, 2016 | Denial of 2-619 motion not reviewed on appeal (merged into final judgment); appellate court declined to decide the motion denial on appeal |
| Whether Aron's petition proved a substantial change in circumstances warranting support reduction | No—change predated the dissolution judgment, so not a post-judgment change | Yes—Aron’s income as of Jan. 29, 2016 was substantially lower (A&N ceased producing income) | Substantial change established; reduction to guideline level not against manifest weight |
| Whether court erred by granting relief when the change actually occurred before the dissolution judgment | Relief improper because change was earlier and thus part of the judgment’s res judicata effect | Even if the change predated the judgment, the judgment fixed facts as of entry; evidence showed Aron's current income was substantially lower than the judgment’s findings, supporting prospective reduction | Court may grant prospective modification when current circumstances differ materially from those recited in the judgment; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether A&N’s income should be imputed because Aron closed it in bad faith to evade support | A&N had been profitable (2012 deposits, earlier finding of net income), so closure was in bad faith and income should be imputed | Aron ceased A&N in good faith because it was unprofitable and required large time investment; trial court credited his testimony | Appellate court found no manifest-weight error: trial court reasonably credited Aron’s good-faith testimony and declined to impute income |
Key Cases Cited
- In re J.M., 245 Ill. App. 3d 909 (appellate denial of challenge to merged order) (denial of 2-619 motion merges into final judgment on appeal)
- Davis v. Int’l Harvester Co., 167 Ill. App. 3d 814 (procedural principle on motion-to-dismiss merging into appeal)
- In re Marriage of Armstrong, 346 Ill. App. 3d 818 (standard: appellate review of trial court finding of substantial change in circumstances)
- Nye v. Nye, 411 Ill. 408 (res judicata binds facts as of judgment entry)
- In re Marriage of Heldebrandt, 301 Ill. App. 3d 265 (res judicata effect of dissolution judgment on facts found at entry)
- In re Marriage of Sweet, 316 Ill. App. 3d 101 (good-faith requirement when voluntary change in employment is alleged to reduce support)
- Holmstrom v. Kunis, 221 Ill. App. 3d 317 (argument forfeiture for failure to cite authority)