In re Marriage of Sorokin
2017 IL App (2d) 160885
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Natasha (petitioner) and Aron Sorokin (respondent) divorced; they have three minor children and a joint-parenting plan with Natasha as primary residential parent.
- Trial court originally imputed substantial income to Aron from his business A&N and Allstate, calculating net income of $152,000 and setting child support at 32% ($4,053.33/month), retroactive to Feb 28, 2014.
- Aron later petitioned (Jan 29, 2016) to reduce support, claiming A&N had ceased operations and his income was essentially Allstate salary (~$96,000/yr), making prior support unaffordable.
- At the reduction hearing the court credited Aron’s testimony that A&N was no longer earning income and that he closed it in good faith; the court found his current net income materially lower and reduced support prospectively and retroactive to Feb 1, 2016.
- Natasha argued the change in circumstances predated the dissolution judgment and that Aron closed A&N in bad faith to evade support; the trial court rejected both contentions and awarded a reduced monthly obligation ($1,828 based on net $5,712.50/month).
- This appeal challenges the reduction as against the manifest weight of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Natasha) | Defendant's Argument (Aron) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by finding a substantial change in circumstances justifying reduced support | Change occurred before judgment (Apr 13, 2015), so Aron cannot obtain reduction; motion to dismiss under §2‑619 | Aron asserted his income since Jan 29, 2016 was substantially lower (A&N closed), justifying prospective reduction | Court: Finding of changed circumstances (as of Jan 29, 2016) was not against manifest weight; reduction allowed prospectively and retroactive to Feb 1, 2016 |
| Whether court should impute income because Aron closed A&N in bad faith to evade support | A&N had been profitable (2012/early‑2013 deposits), so closure was in bad faith and income should be imputed | Aron maintained he closed A&N because it was unprofitable and he acted in good faith | Court: Credited Aron’s good‑faith testimony; no imputation warranted; finding not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Nye v. Nye, 411 Ill. 408 (res judicata binds findings as to facts existing at time of judgment)
- In re Marriage of Heldebrandt, 301 Ill. App. 3d 265 (res judicata effect of dissolution judgment on factual findings)
- In re Marriage of Sweet, 316 Ill. App. 3d 101 (change in employment must be in good faith to justify reduction)