In re Marriage of Vondra, 2013 IL App (1st) 123025

David and Mika Vondra started divorce proceedings in 2010; the case remains pending.
Two adult children, Nicholas (born 1992) and Michael (born 1991), potential beneficiaries of college expenses.
Mika filed a petition under section 513 seeking educational expenses for the children and Mika’s living expenses while the children reside with her.
Nicholas and Michael sought to join under section 2-406; the trial court denied, ruling they had no standing to sue in the dissolution case.
Nicholas and Michael separately moved to reconsider; the trial court denied, and the appellate record followed with timely appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is joinder mandatory under 2-406?	Nicholas and Michael claim their interests may be affected by a judgment.	No settlement exists; no direct rights conferred yet under 513.	No mandatory joinder; no settlement rights to enforce yet.
Can Nicholas and Michael intervene under 2-408 as a matter of right?	Intervention is necessary to protect their college-expense interests.	Mika adequately represents their interests; intervention not required.	Intervention as of right denied; representation deemed adequate.
Does section 506 apply to the adult children for representation?	Section 506 provides rights to minors; ages exceed 18, so should still apply.	Section 506 does not apply to adults; discretionary and not mandatory.	Section 506 not applicable to these adults; discretionary representation only.
Was due process violated by not allowing hearing before potential college funding obligations?	Failure to allow opportunity to be heard before incurring loans or expenses.	No support; argument forfeited.	Argument forfeited; no due process violation shown.

In re Marriage of Spircoff, 2011 IL App (1st) 103189 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (2011)) (education expense decisions discretionary; not mandatory)
In re Marriage of Treacy, 204 Ill. App. 3d 282 (Ill. App. 3d Dist. (1990)) (courts not required to fund post-high school education)
Miller v. Miller, 160 Ill. App. 3d 354 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (1987)) (act does not create a child’s direct petition right)
Spircoff, 2011 IL App (1st) 103189 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (2011)) (standing of third-party beneficiaries to enforce settlement terms)
Warbucks Investments Ltd. Partnership v. Rosewell, 241 Ill. App. 3d 814 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (1993)) (adequacy of representation requires specific facts, not mere conjecture)
Schwechter v. Schwechter, 138 Ill. App. 3d 602 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (1985)) (standard for intervention timely filing and adequate interest)
In re Marriage of Lerner, 316 Ill. App. 3d 1072 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (2000)) (mother’s petition aligned with son’s interests for support)
In re Marriage of Houston, 150 Ill. App. 3d 608 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (1986)) (obligation to contribute educational expenses not conditioned on relationship quality)
Gibb v. Triezenberg, 188 Ill. App. 3d 695 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (1989)) (relationship quality not a prerequisite to obligations)
In re Marriage of Ricketts, 329 Ill. App. 3d 173 (Ill. App. 1st Dist. (2002)) (guardian representation discretionary, not mandatory)