In re Marriage of Tworek
89 N.E.3d 1004
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- David and Amy Tworek divorced by judgment entered December 19, 2014; judgment incorporated a marital settlement and parenting agreement awarding Amy residential custody and David parenting time.
- Judgment required David to give five days’ notice for visitation changes or forfeit the visit, and allowed 14 days post-judgment to petition for contribution to attorney fees.
- Amy petitioned for contribution to attorney fees (claiming ~$33,183 balance); David moved to shorten the five-day notice and later sought a downward deviation in child support.
- At hearings, Amy’s annual income was shown to be roughly $66,000–$75,000; David’s was substantially higher (approx. $207,000–$233,000).
- Trial court denied David’s request to shorten the notice (but defined “emergency”), found David not credible and that he had abused visitation notice, ordered him to pay $24,000 toward Amy’s attorney fees, and denied his request to deviate downward from the 28% child-support guideline.
- David appealed the denial to modify notice, the denial of downward deviation in child support, and the attorney-fees contribution award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amy) | Defendant's Argument (David) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Modify five-day visitation notice | The court should enforce agreed provision; best interests considered | Five-day notice impracticable due to last-minute work events; court should apply best-interest standard to shorten notice | Denial affirmed—court considered children’s best interests, defined "emergency," and found five-day notice appropriate given father's conduct and job accommodations available |
| Contribution to attorney fees | Father can pay; mother lacks means to pay remaining fees | Award is improper because mother’s financial disclosure was outdated at hearing | Affirmed—trial court properly considered financial circumstances at time of hearing, reasonableness, and husband’s ability to pay; no abuse of discretion |
| Downward deviation from child support guideline | Not applicable (mother argued guideline appropriate) | Guideline (28%) overstates children’s needs given father's increased commissions and standard of living | Denial affirmed—father failed to produce evidence compelling deviation; court balanced incomes, needs, and living standard; findings not against manifest weight |
Key Cases Cited
- Blisset v. Blisset, 123 Ill. 2d 161 (Ill. 1988) (court not bound by agreements on custody/support/visitation)
- Material Serv. Corp. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 98 Ill. 2d 382 (Ill. 1983) (appellate court may affirm on any correct ground)
- In re Marriage of Keip, 332 Ill. App. 3d 876 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002) (attorney-fee awards in dissolution reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Olsen, 229 Ill. App. 3d 107 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (child-support rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- In re Marriage of Singleteary, 293 Ill. App. 3d 25 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997) (court may decline to deviate from guideline even with high-income parent)