2016 IL App (1st) 141453
Ill. App. Ct.2016Background
- Vladimir and Julia Melamed divorced in 2001; the marital agreement required Vladimir to pay $400/month child support. Respondent (Julia) moved to increase child support in Sept. 2008.
- Extensive, contentious discovery and motion practice followed; the trial court bifurcated proceedings to address whether there was a substantial change in Vladimir’s ability to pay before addressing children’s needs.
- In Feb. 2012 the trial court found a substantial change of circumstances as to Vladimir’s ability to pay and proceeded to calculate new support and retroactivity; Respondent later sought a trust under 750 ILCS 5/503(g).
- On Oct. 16, 2013 the court awarded increased child support, substantial retroactive support, ordered a $400,000 503(g) trust for the minor daughter, and awarded attorney’s fees to Respondent; a March 21, 2014 clarifying order adjusted the monthly support and resolved sanctions.
- Vladimir appealed but waived review of several issues by failing to brief them; the appellate court affirmed the increase in child support and the creation of the 503(g) trust, but modified the trust to provide termination and return of remainder funds to Vladimir under defined conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Vladimir) | Defendant's Argument (Julia) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bifurcation of proceedings was improper | Bifurcation was erroneous (briefed but not argued) | Court properly managed discovery and bifurcated to focus on ability to pay | Waived by Vladimir for lack of developed argument; not reviewed |
| Admissibility of bank statements and tax returns (hearsay/party admissions) | Documents were hearsay and improperly admitted; incomplete records | Documents were party admissions and properly admitted; gaps resulted from Vladimir’s discovery noncompliance | Admitted as party-opponent statements under Ill. R. Evid. 801(d)(2); no error |
| Whether court erred in deviating from child-support guidelines / computing income | Court failed to find Respondent’s income or children’s needs; improperly averaged/imputed Vladimir’s income | Deviation permissible after considering best interests; court heard evidence of both parties’ finances and imputed income where appropriate | Statute does not require specific findings on each factor; court gave reasons and did not abuse discretion in imputing income or deviating; affirmed |
| Whether section 503(g) trust was improper or lacked specificity | Trust was improper and appointment of Respondent as trustee was erroneous (not litigated below) | Trust was necessary to protect minor child given Vladimir’s conduct and nonpayment risk | Creation of 503(g) trust affirmed as within trial court’s discretion; appellate court modified trust termination and distribution terms (termination at 21 if not used for education; remainder to Vladimir) |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. John Crane Inc., 261 Ill. App. 3d 419 (Ill. App. 1994) (mailbox rule and proof of mailing by certificate of mailing)
- Halleck v. Coastal Building Maintenance Co., 269 Ill. App. 3d 887 (Ill. App. 1995) (hearsay determinations are questions of law)
- Woods v. Cole, 181 Ill. 2d 512 (Ill. 1998) (de novo review for questions of law)
- Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171 Ill. 2d 230 (Ill. 1996) (statutory construction principles)
- MidAmerica Bank, FSB v. Charter One Bank, FSB, 232 Ill. 2d 560 (Ill. 2009) (use plain statutory language to determine legislative intent)
- In re Marriage of Adams, 348 Ill. App. 3d 340 (Ill. App. 2004) (courts may impute income to voluntarily unemployed noncustodial parent)
- In re Marriage of Petersen, 319 Ill. App. 3d 325 (Ill. App. 2001) (503(g) trust appropriate where noncustodial parent is unwilling or unable to pay child support)