*1 hearing “gave testimony whatsoever on the key compli- issue ance with the Ordinance” and they only testified to conclusions opinion their “the Ordinance complied with.” as above, ample testimony stated given during documentation were hearing the Plan Commission’s decision to approve the application. Museum’s Balancing foregoing testimony provided by plaintiffs, and documents we believe there was substantial evidence to support approval application.
For above, all the reasons stated affirm trial court.
Affirmed.
O’BRIEN, EJ., TULLY, J., concur. KOENIGSKNECHT, In re MARRIAGE OF MICHAEL J. Petitioner- Appellant, KOENIGSKNECHT, and LAURA Respondent-Appellee. OSWALD (1st Division)
First District No. 1 —97—4196 Opinion filed December *2 GALLAGHER,J., dissenting. Gardner, Chicago, ap- Koenigsknecht, Douglas, J. of Carton & of
Michael pro pellant se. Jr., Vurdelja Heaphy, Chicago, appellee.
George Vurdelja, & of N. of of the court: opinion TULLY delivered the JUSTICE Laura Os- Petitioner, Koenigsknecht, respondent, Michael J. of of mar- Koenigsknecht, judgment dissolution wald were awarded July judgment respondent awarded riage 1993. The petition filed a and child December support. August On support. extend the maintenance and to increase the amount of 5, 1997, following hearing, circuit court decreased the amount years maintenance and extended it two and increased support. appeals August Petitioner judgment pursu (155 301). ant to Supreme Court Rule 301 Ill. R. follow, part
For the reasons that affirm part. and reverse in In the dissolution of marriage, the circuit court made following findings. parties lawfully were married in 1977 and children, had two who were born in 1981 and 1984. Petitioner’s net $160,000 income per year, $13,000 was average with an of between “A per portion month. of the marital estate” “spent prosecution of and the defense preoc- cupation in obtaining custody of the two children and the creation of style [szc].” artificial life Before filed, the divorce action was parties spent per month to maintain the spent household and money vacations, additional education, on improvements in the $5,000 monthly residence. The amount marital amount to maintain the parties’ lifestyle at the time separation of the remained “a reasonable sum necessary for the Respondent lifestyle maintain a for herself and the children.” The court also found that respondent “made a decision to be custodial and child parent provider care expense at the of the furtherance of her Finally, career.” the court upon lifestyle by found that “based created prior separation to their that fact warrants a deviation from the statu- tory application guideline [the] 25% support as would otherwise be by mandated Section 505.”
At the conclusion of findings, the court’s it custody awarded Furthermore, children to respondent. the trial petitioner court ordered $2,500 $2,500 pay per to month in child support per and month in maintenance. The court also ordered that the maintenance award years would a petition terminate after four unless to extend was filed order, within six months of the date of termination. As a result of the approximately $450,000 received from the mar- sale of the home, petitioner’s pension plan, petitioner’s ital and investments. 1996, respondent
In December petition filed a to extend the main- tenance and to increase the child support. Following hearing, the $2,500 circuit court reduced per the maintenance amount from month $1,200 per years. to month and extended the maintenance for two addition, $2,500 the child month per court increased from $3,145 month, statutory to per equaling guideline 25% income, $12,580 petitioner’s monthly net which was at time of the hearing. The hearing evidence at the that had petitioner showed addition, petitioner remarried and had another child. In and cur- his apartment building, rent wife owned an they managed. which He family required monthly that live on his firm testified his to law According petitioner, inadequate draws. to the amount was his year- until he received year each money borrow him to required Ph.D. in French held a Respondent his law firm. end check from teaching position. in a $24,000 year in one earned no more than homemaker divorce, respondent a full-time time of the At the divorce, respondent spent income.” Since the “apparent with no find a business money employment. Respondent started in order jobs for Respondent applied no income. also produced which almost teach- marketing applied firms and advertising agencies and with no job offers. respondent received ing positions. respondent’s employ- efforts The circuit court found her abilities.” her education and ment “were not commensurate with one where addition, [respondent’s] “the situation is the court stated almost created situation where years efforts after these four have *** working you if if she were not it almost be better off and ex- of income that it has left after taxes only the amount consider court, that the “in its discretion feels penses and so on.” It also stated mother, that minor children still at home that with two considering unit and all other family it’s in the best interests of the The court that some fashion of maintenance be maintained.” factors years, [respondent] stated that in the next two will “hopefully further [to], achievet,] get totally indepen- if not be able closer Therefore, maintenance amount and dence.” the court reduced the years. Regarding support, it the child made reviewable two court found: claim, though both expenses that both even “[T]he *** degree, they suggest
expenses may exaggerated to now be some enjoy a standard of that the children would different marriage dissolved; on that that the Court not been and it’s basis circumstances, very change finds that that fact is to conform to finds further that it sees reason not the Court Therefore, [petitioner’s] statutory guidelines. considering net $12,815 per $150,978 per year or fairly calculated at income to be $3,145 monthly roughly month, be or will increased statutory equivalent guidelines.” to the (1) erred in: the trial court appeal, petitioner On contends change increasing in circumstances and finding a substantial (2) month; extending the mainte- per support from (3) in two nance; making the maintenance reviewable 510(a) of Mar of the Illinois and Dissolution Section *4 be support or can riage Act that an award of maintenance provides in circum change upon showing a of a substantial “only modified 1996). 5/510(a) (West The burden óf demonstrat stances.” 750 ILCS seeking the change party in the ing a circumstances on substantial 478 (West 5/510(a) 1996);
modification. 750 ILCS
Marriage
In re
of Krupp,
(1990).
779,
3d
App.
207 Ill.
429
566 N.E.2d
modify
The decision to
award of maintenance or
support within the discretion of the trial
court, and a court of review will not disturb such an order absent an
Ofsuch
abuse
discretion. See In Marriage Carpel,
re
232 Ill. App. 3d
of
806,
(1992);
Petitioner also extending the circuit court erred in making the maintenance and it in two “An award of reviewable spouse capable [or income can improving her] maintenance to his *5 Ill. 586 Schuster, 3d at be an abuse of discretion.” only no reason occurs when at “An abuse of discretion N.E.2d 1353. Ward, In re find as the trial court did.” person able could carefully 35, 41, After 641 N.E.2d could record, person that we conclude no reviewing the respon that case. The court found court did in this find as the trial her education commensurate with efforts were not job-search dent’s changed had the standard of and but also found that experience, marriage. It also during had had the from the one the and financial re ages, physical conditions considered the minor children the fact that the sources. The court also considered family’s in respondent home with and found it were still at she respondent award some maintenance while best interests to Nevertheless, of mainte job her search. the extension continued with light finding nance constituted an abuse of in of the court’s discretion searching respondent’s job that efforts were insufficient. Ward, appellate in reached a result. In
The court Ward similar degree philosophy in economics and respondent a bachelor’s in respondent past, appellate an MBA. The and the worked employment. Although for her to find inability court found reason business, losing money. her it was The re respondent started own profitable her in the future. spondent believed that business would be respondent’s the trial court terminated the maintenance termination, respondent appealed award after 18 months. The affirmed, stating reviewing “[a]fter that the rec appellate ord, background, in light respondent’s] [the educational work hold that a reason experience, ongoing enterprise, business $1,000 a person award of month able could decide that maintenance According to the was sufficient.” 267 Ill. 3d at for months court, mainte required provide appellate petitioner was succeeded; only required he respondent’s nance until the business herself. pay respondent it until the was able case, Ward, in this as record shows gainful employment. highly capable educated and is person only respondent’s reward A continuation of maintenance would choosing conducting job search and behavior unrealistic unprofitable run an business. modification we affirm the child light foregoing, of the
and reverse maintenance modification. part; part.
Affirmed in reversed FROSSARD, J.,
O’MARA concurs. GALLAGHER, dissenting: JUSTICE I agree majority’s disposition of the child I support issue. respectfully dissent from the majority’s treatment of the maintenance issue. After hearing, the trial court reduced the maintenance amount from per month to and extended the maintenance pay years. ments for two a specific finding court made that some form of maintenance would be continued since the respondent taking would, care of Moreover, two minor children. the maintenance amount be reviewable in perceive two It is difficult to an abuse of discre ruling. tion A trial court’s determination of great entitled to deference. A maintenance award will not be set aside unless it is against an abuse of discretion or weight the manifest *6 (1994). Ward, In re Marriage 35, evidence. 267 Ill. 3d only An abuse of discretion occurs when no person could (1990). find as the court did. v. Szesny Szesny, 197 Ill. 3d An appellate court must substitute the trial court’s discretion with its own. re Marriage of Partyka,
fact, Ward, by relied upon majority, this found that the trial court did not in setting abuse its discretion a maintenance award based on the education and income. majority
Here the should not receive two-year made, reduced maintenance award because she has not view, the majority’s progress independence. sufficient toward The majority’s finding, however, puts judges very trial untenable position. majority does not for the allow considerable latitude that is placed majority’s with the trial court. The effect of the decision that unless a trial judge precisely reaches the same conclusion as the majority, completely, and terminates maintenance there is an abuse judges guidance ruling discretion. Trial receive no from such a toas by when their bemay compromise discretion used to reach a fair balancing all today interests. The calls for a black and white decision gray discretionary determination in area calls. is, moreover, by
The truth that the conclusion reached the trial eminently court in this case is fair into reasonable and and takes ac- minor count the two children at home and what is in their best interest. The trial court balanced the various interests and made intel- Therefore, ligent findings based on the evidence. there was no abuse entirety. its trial court’s I affirm the of discretion. LABOR, Plaintiff-Appellant DEPARTMENT OF rel. THE THE PEOPLE ex al., INC., ENTERPRISES, et Cross-Appellee, v. SOCCER Cross-Appellants. Defendants-Appellees and (1st Division) 1 — 97—4469 District No. First Opinion December filed