petition for rule to show cause and a denial of the requests for attorney's fees the issues raised can be summarized into four categories the first being the award of a downward deviation from the statutory child support find the time that the trial court second the trial court entered into nine retroactive child support to the date of the petition for modification was filed which was september of two thousand and fourteen the lack of contribution to child care expenses the courts finding as well as payments any findings as relates to payment of twenty percent mr like annual bonus the third issue is that the trial court erred in finding mr lites he yet ok thank you and i apologize if i missed the a four issue would be that the trial court erred in not awarding attorney's fees to mr life willful disregard of the rules of discovery as well as the failure to abide by the two thousand and thirteen order as relates to the thirty five percent have uncovered medical expenses as to the first issue this relates you failed to provide compelling evidence to justify the downward deviation as this court is aware that parentage act requires child's work to be calculated in the same manner as under the marriage and dissolution of marriage act and at the time of the trial there was a presumption of level of twenty percent of the  ors net income and the purpose behind the child support is to provide reasonable and necessary educational physical mental and emotional health needs of the child the supreme court and bo hundred five held that the child is not expected to live in a minimal level of comfort while the non custodial parent is living in a life of luxury and in cases where the court is looking up to twenty percent guideline in a higher income scenario they must fail it's two concerns when dealing with that and the first one would be that the child support would not result in a windfall and that the second is the standard of living the child would have enjoyed absent the parties either divorcing or that the parties not staying together for the child and in the current the prior order in two thousand and thirteen ordered that mr likes he flip a i thousand dollars per month in child support plus thirty five percent of the minor child's uncovered medical expenses that one thousand dollars figure was based on mr lites use two thousand and thirteen affidavit stating that he was only earning seventy nine thousand dollars from a pension it's undisputed that mr like he was in fact receiving additional income after that time and that income was in the form of that stock options the exercise of stock options so throughout the course of a very lengthy and contested discovery i was able to determine based on receipt of actual fidelity statements the bank account statements as well as tax returns which took over two years to even receive i was able to determine based on that and the court found that mr lighty did in fact receive income in addition to the seventy nine thousand in the pension and so their trial court found that divestiture stock options and the exercise of those funds in fact income for child support purposes however the court only modified the child support order to three thousand per month which is a modification of it ends up being fifteen percent of mr like to use net income  down the court downward deviated and only found it was retroactive to april of two thousand and sixteen and once again and i understand the court would be aware of this but the five the initial petition for modification for child support was filed september fourth of twenty i think september eighth of twenty fourteen and that was after mr light see it had refused to provide income statements which was ordered in the previous two thousand and thirteen order as well as finally in a motion to clarify saying he was actually operating businesses with four other purpose misliked he also determined through a course of a google search that mr like he was also the vice president of sales and marketing for catalyst card company so in finding that out we filed the petition to modify and as i outlined in pretty good detail in the statement of facts at least i would leave it with details there was a lengthy discovery process  account so it would tell me mr lites he would tell me that he had five hundred thousand in his fidelity account but refused to provide his actual account statements which would have shown me that he was receiving monthly stock distributions this is the exact same thing that happened in the two thousand and thirteen affidavit mr liked his two thousand and fourteen affidavit as well as his twenty sixteen it is that was probably that was filed at the time of the third day of the eviden final evidentiary hearing this was a kind of continual problem throughout this case which was he was hiding from me and from miss webb his monthly bank account statements his actual tax returns i would receive the first two pages and not receive any of the additional supporting documents as well as the bank account statements despite having on line access to all of this the american express his fidelity account as well as his i think it was a wells fargo account he would provide me the most limited detail and it would just be over a span of a hundred and one hundred eighty days or eighteen months instead of actually providing meet the checks had done it purposely that it was awfully done and that he actually had only just began employment with catalyst card company as a april of two thousand and sixteen so he used that date basically yes to use the april of two thousand and sixteen date as the date in which the child support should start and it's important to note that catalyst card company employment was once again another case hotly contested issue for me to even determine where he worked what his employment situation was the abuse of discretion standard would apply as outlined in the current view dressin case which is the fourth district case in one nine hundred ninety one which dealt specifically with the retroactive and the court's determination of retroactive child support and in that case the the trial court's denial of retroactive child support because any other decision would encourage delay tactics in litigation and defeat the obvious intent of the legislature but also in advance of the statement mistaken and it's you know it's decision and we dealing with a mistake here but the problem or no i don't i believe it is different in that specific fact that you're referring to i don't believe it was a mistake from the court is a believe the court actually in its order identified that it was aware of when the petition was filed and that mr lacy there's no mistake mr lacy received notification as of september of two thousand and fourteen i believe the direction of the carnes case is important because it does outline the need and the purpose behind making child support retroactive to the date that the person actually files the petition because it's not what happens is exactly what happened in this case and it it's not only detrimental to my clients but also their petitioners in the future because mr lighty was able to pay child support at a level of somebody making seventy nine thousand dollars however he was making over three hundred fifty to four hundred thousand dollars and so the retroactivity it's not as if the court was saying mr whites you just shouldn't have to pay that he found that that was income and under the marriage of rogers  supreme court on my supreme court case says the trial court actually does not have direct discretion to deduct income that would all be used for child support purposes and i think this case is important because there is no dispute that he was receiving that income not only in two thousand and thirteen at the final hearing that alternately became the order in two thousand and thirteen but every month after i provided it to the court as evidence monthly items ations from his wells fargo account as well as his fidelity account to show that these were not every once in a while it was reoccurring income in the levels of upwards to thirty thousand dollars a month he was receiving income and so the i believe that the dressing case would show and speak directly to deny all of retroactive in this case would not only prejudice the the minor child under the child support and and i think make the purpose of child support essentially worthless in this case because she had it she was providing support and being provided support at a level of someone that was seventy nine thousand dollars well making over three hundred fifty thousand dollars but more importantly it would be encouraged to lay tactics which is already a difficult process in divorce situations we as attorneys as well as the courts have a lot of the docket there's a lot going on in the there are a lot of requests and reasonable reasons to file a motion to compile and reasonable objections however that wasn't this case this was a case where i simply asked and you can look at my  the court's rationale was if you could one moment i don't want to say something that's not true within the order the court specifically said in denying the retroactive child support this court has reviewed the docket and history in this case concerning the september two thousand and fourteen petition that review shows that the matter being continued by three men on several occasions as well as hearings being rescheduled f the request of counsel that does not obviate the very clear attempts by miss webb and myself to receive the documents that were being requested and there is that  because we continued by agreement some status hearings throughout the process that that then means mr lives he doesn't have to pay child support at the same level as every other person that's paying every pay or of child support under the guidelines and then also to further answer your question the it it the court also said the record reveals that the parties engaged in a lengthly discovery dispute where in lights he was objecting to much of carolyn's discovery rights he cannot be faulted for this as it is the litigants right to make a good faith challenge to the graph or scope of discovery well i will say that judge davis was correct in saying that a litigant has the ability to make a good faith i don't believe in this situation the facts warrant a good faith finding and i believe that specific lee where the abuse of discretion comes into play because i asked for a very common request just income documents to show income to show his assets and his financial status from the date of june of two thousand and thirteen to when i first propounded them in september of two thousand and fourteen i'm having difficulty understanding the relevance  discovery and cooperation or lack of cooperation once you find monies from certain sources constitute income and you have t income started coming in and you have the date when the petition was filed i don't see the relevance of those issues as to ritual activity and i agree with you  and i agree that i don't believe as it relates to the retroactivity i believe based on the the merits of roger's precedent when there's income it counts as income in the court doesn't have discretion however it goes with that was the court's finding to why they deny retroactive and i would agree that once the court didn't have that ability at that point because there was no dispute that he was receiving the income at the level he was the date that i filed the petition in september of two thousand and fourteen my discussions as a relates to the delay tactics in discovery is an overarching argument throughout the remaining issues in that case i mean the court does have discretion as to ritual activity you would agree with that yes i do but my point my concern is i don't think these are appropriate things to consider in exercising that discretion when it comes to retroactivity yes i would agree with you and i think that there is and i believe we can go back to the dress and case which is that specifically was saying the discretion had to do when notice was actually provided and that's a lot of the case law that's out there is when did a person actually become notified because in situations people file petitions they don't serve them so that delay time is a factor in the courts and i believe would be within the court's discretion also there are situations where pay fathers or mothers to pay ors are providing in other ways and so the court can have discretion and look at what he income was actually being received and i believe that was the purpose behind providing a court discretion for retroactive child support however once again that was not the situation in this case it's so that if you in conjunction with reading the marriage of dr rogers as well as the purpose and meaning behind child support yes you're right i think that once it is conclusively established in the trial court in this case found that he was receiving and who found that the exercise of those stock options were income that any other finding would obviate the purpose and need for child support and allow specifically in this situation somebody to pay child support at an eighty thousand dollar level well making all almost three times or four times that amount when the person did have notice when the person was your providing other things or there were some type of circumstances impacting the appropriateness of requiring it to be retroactive to that date absolutely and i would go back to once again the notice as well as my previous discussion as relates to potential other income that the party had the receiving party had received during that power whatever showing  and be able to advise the court on every what i really would be a factor for discretion puts the civically in the case that were in here the discretion could not be based on the fact that and i believe it is an abuse of discretion for the court find denial of retroactive after finding income receipt of income because i agree to continue a status hearing there's there's no dispute by looking at the docket entries and by looking at the discovery and  continual correspondence between mr past ryder and i that we were in a litigation contested highly contested litigation as relates to me trying to determine how much money mr lighty actually received in income because it was based on just the initial discovery that his two thousand and thirteen affidavit was false and that the two thousand and i call it or two thousand and fourteen affidavit however i didn't actually receive it and till two thousand and fifteen it's dated november twenty sixth two thousand and fourteen i did not receive that affidavit in the course of discovery and till november of twenty fifteen and so once again we're in november of two thousand and fifteen is when i first actually receive answers  to tory's a true supplemental response to requests for use and the financial affidavit and directly after that period of time i schedule depositions i have been subpoenaing the documents so not only do i understanding of the timing of events this is not an initial paternity action we're looking at support this is coming on a post judgement where there was a final decision in two thousand and thirteen of what the support level was  suspect that miss webb was not happy with the level of support after she got new counsel and as time went on and what happened then in two thousand and fourteen was she filed a petition seeking to modify child support to raise a lifetime of work with three and a very large fortune five hundred company acquired multiple residences multiple houses he had responsibility to pay for those things he also had these things called stock options and they were disclosed in two thousand and thirteen time i would suggest that the court did because they had the affidavit we don't have the transcript of the two thousand and thirteen proceedings we know the amount that he was making from retirement right and we know the amount of support that was ordered was there any indication there was a deviation by the court at that time the court did in its order say that it was a deviation from thousand to two thousand and thirteen if you read the two thousand and thirteen order it talks about it being a deviation specifically  springfield rents a hotel room you know this is somebody who has a lot of cost that i think the trial court would ordinarily consider in a situation of deviate the deviation the other thing is that he this was a double cover situation which sort of touches upon the issues here where he was insuring this child a very substantial cost house of let me ask you one more thing about you're saying that they were considered this back in two thousand and thirteen so how do they show a change in circumstances if all of we're retired we're looking for work here's the situation and then as time went on as the case drag out as various issues got resolved then he did become employed and at that point it didn't make any sense to take a position that there wasn't a substantial change in circumstances and in fact  rich whitey voluntarily up his child support when he took when his job turned into a paying position so that was the testimony that was in front of the trial court when these matters were considered and that's why the truck court did not air and setting  before well now i think the trial court correctly considered options apply in the case law that's there down the interesting thing stock options are very tricky and if you review all the case on the side in the briefs one of the things for instance that's problematic about saying rich had two thousand and fourteen income from stock options is when you dig into the statements almost all of his income and i would suggest it's probably not coincidental all of his income for stock options was prior to the filing of the fish so when council gets up here and makes  so he had all this income in two thousand and fourteen with his income because he was selling the stock options before the petition was filed he was doing that to pay his thanks he so say he had that income that you're long twenty fourteen income and try to project it what you're essentially doing is violating section five five ten and going and obsessing on retroactive income in my opinion it's very problematic to say that his two thousand and fourteen income was x or y when we're talking about somebody discretion when we're talking about selling a house or selling assets because they do show up as income you know i've never taken the position that riches income is anything other than what it is you know is what it is in his head his tax returns say certain numbers i went through great le before this court trying to explain you know because his twenty fourteen box one income says a very large number doesn't mean he has that income because in box twelve it goes out in a large portion of that income actually goes to the stock ish work as a cost it's never realized by him and under the case law of rodgers and some of the other cases that are cited it's simply not income for child support purposes so all those reasons that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in a value waiting we had two physicians with very large incomes and we said under the old guidelines it's not an abuse of discretion we should deviate where we have two parents with significant incomes here even by her own affidavit miss  webb had three hundred thousand dollars in income in two thousand and fifteen it be hard pressed to say that somebody was paying and he's assessed at thirty six thousand dollars a year that's what he's paid and that's what he the court found as as his support they deviated downward to that number from the four thousand some a month to say that riches payment three thousand thirty six thousand dollars doesn't seem significantly meet the needs of this child i would think would be outside of the evidence you know his contribution is significant and if you continue to raise that up to the four thousand and the higher numbers actually results in a windfall to miss webb where she is you know not having to support this child essentially because she has such a large income this terms of reference to them because i don't not used its discretion doings well first of all if you take the vision that you always have to go retroactive which which may be death then essentially you're reading something into the statute that is not there i mean it is discretionary  shall in may when it when it says you shall make it retroactive and when we're talking about modification under five ten that's that is something that is a permissive thing and that provides discretion to the court now the question i think maybe to raise is what if what factors  or what is the court consider and i don't know that there's a case that is directly on point that would set out what the factors are that the court should consider if it's in determining retroactively but i'd suggest in this particular case that the  matter that was determined by the court as dispositive is important and that's following our case in kabul the fourth district purple case where the court looked at delay and why was there this long period of time when you make a retroactive award you create some problems because it's not like it's just a sequence full hundred dollars a month you know thousand dollars a month instead you're creating a large number in this case going back to two thousand and fourteen even assessing three thousand instead of four thousand you know you're talking about a year and a half of i mean a forty thousand dollar award which which is something very did you know yes the numbers might be the same but it's different because it's not the sequential amount so there is a difference there  don't have the money you can you can do that but in terms of trying to assess is this remedy the same it's different i think it is is very different to go back retroactive why the court did quickly exercised its discretion in this case is because the court previous case and so she asked for two thousand and twelve information prior to two thousand and thirty she tried to go to discovery on the previous case and we were alternately successful in getting judge our duly on the motion to compel hearing that occurred which is you know in short they tried to make this discovery so lengthy and that it was found to be that should be restricted so so my client was relayed to the contempt citation well i think it relates to the delay if you will being in good faith and under karpal that's something that this court in the truck court is presumably aware of that and cited karpal in fact and said in the trial court decision he looked at that case and he said this is why i have discretion i'm going to look at the facts i'm familiar with these people i'm did that the sequence i believe is as follows and i have a little bit of trouble with some of the chart yes they have been submitted as i don't think they're accurate i try to point those out of my response but within the first forty five days of discovery being done there was a discovery  spawns you've heard again here today that allegedly the affidavit was included i think the affidavit was i don't know you know that and if the affidavit wasn't there well why not take that to the trial court you know and say oh it wasn't provided to two thousand fifteen i had a certificate of service on file that says it was was provided within the first forty some days following that additional discovery got her part of the another side so they got even more voluminous and that's when the motion for a protective order was filed saying look some of the stuff they shouldn't shouldn't be making this case bigger than it needs to be you're not going to go back and relive again and come two thousand and twelve and so on then that was heard in june of that year and after that then there was a requirement in compliance with the illinois supreme court rule to a one k that the parties actually personally can solve which the motions to compel if you know they don't have that in there i think they're required in order for there to even be a sanction order but i would ask as the sanctions that issue's been waived because it was never presented to the trial court in the first place we got halfway through the trial and then all of a sudden we got oh yeah you need to give us some sanctions on discovery that that issue should have been race prior to even getting to trial or at the very first day of practice saying look i would really love proceed i'm prepared to proceed but i need x i need y and i asked for it on this date and here's my two and a letter and that's the procedure but going back to this abuse of discretion about retroactive i just simply think there's a lot of problems that you have with that because of the passage of time  again you don't know mr lites these two thousand and fourteen income you all simply got to determination at the time of trial what his income was but that was based on included the income from his employment it included  statement as to exercise of stock options over time you know when were they i think it is very important again if you're going to make it retroactive to twenty fourteen and use twenty fourteen year long exercise a stock option that's not what five ten provides that's not what our law is that you can't go retroactive there's a due process requirement says look you can't do that and more fundamentally when it comes to this income we're talking about as somebody who's basically selling an asset because he had didn't the lady thing and he certainly didn't do anything by which a retroactive a war would be mandatory or we would say we have to go retroactive and to take the position that this child did not receive the benefit of the income that was received i think is  a unfair statement to mr lycee who also mentally has been involved with this thinks that he can have this child and has provided housework and continued to pay the child support that was ordered to participate in the court process and he did so and there's no finding in the truck court that he did anything that proper in this particular case so for those reasons i asked the court to deny requests for retroactive child support the other issues i think are fully briefed and in the brief i'll stand on the recess those there's any additional questions i republican i'll try to address mr past fighters and i believe just as whites first question which was did the child support order in two thousand and thirteen provided deviation based on b mr past waters position here today and mr light sees was that he disclosed the stock options however when you look specifically at the two thousand and thirteen after david there is no mention of any monthly income from investments stocks and there's specific lines for that in the ask in the affidavit which is provided in the appendix specifically as relates to two thousand and thirteen order their child support order and this would be appended to eighty six says according to the exhibits and evidence presented richard's net income is six thousand six hundred  forty three dollars per month thus making his statutory monthly obligation of eight hundred sixty six dollars richard has voluntarily agreed to an awkward deviation to it to an additional one hundred thirty four dollars resulting in a child support obligation of a thousand dollars per month there is no dispute and it is not something that is unclear as to what the court decided in two thousand and thirteen and what it was presented with specifically if you go down and further in that it says that the court notes richards independent for consulting firm is in the beginning stages and that his income may alternately increase and then provided that mr lighty actually have to provide income statements to miss webb to be able to realize what his actual income was going forward that's where the litigation started ok so it ends that two thousand and thirteen order mr lay it was not miss webb this upset about what the income level was she actually thought at that time mr might see was as was accurate and honest in his affidavit when he stated he only was receiving his pension in fact he then filed mr white's he filed the first post judgment detail when and that was saying i don't need to provide my income statements that's unfair because there's four partners and we're doing this so we i've been got involved in the case based on that filing and based on that filing and miss as i said before miss webb's realization on google that mr what lighty was vice president of vice president of marketing for catalyst card company i mean he had a whole profile about this based on that so there was multiple facets that led to the petition for modification in child support in september of two thousand and fourteen there's no dispute that he was receiving income at a level that was much higher than hearing that's also not true the pretrial memorandum specifically that i filed before the trial said that i was requesting discovery sanctions and discovery sanctions there's a i believe we have a difference of opinion as to what the documents identify in the discovery but that's for the court to decide because they are all within the record and that is the two thousand and fourteen affidavit was not provided as part of the response to request produce i  a two a one k letter i sent mr past quarter to two a one k letters which i attached to my motion to compel which are which is filed in february of two thousand and fifteen in those letters i identify i never received that i received the first page of an please supplement it with the remaining part i did not receive that instead we i received a motion to dismiss as well as a motion for protective order and stay because i was asking for income statements it's very clear why mister he didn't want to provide those income statements he didn't want to provide any of his stock options was because it would show exactly what the court found that he was receiving in excess of three hundred thousand dollars per year in the exercise of stock options and i'm not asking the court to make some determination based on you know pull it out of anywhere for two thousand and fourteen income i provided as part of my closing argument as well as the thin plans several different options which identify specifically the income mr lights he received starting in september of two thousand and fourteen because i provided details item is ations to show that the court could not have to average or make a determination out of nowhere there's a way to determine income and it's just looking at your monthly vague statements and the facility stock options and you add it to the pension that he was receiving it's not difficult or on a i don't think that falls under the discretion of the court to say it's too hard to determine i believe that's what mr passengers attempting to say is that that's the issue is if you know it's hard because it's forty thousand dollars i agree that it's hard that miss lighty and kendall specifically didn't receive the benefit of that forty thousand dollars of child support and well mr likes he was able to live a very lavish lifestyle which is clear from his records and from his testimony and said so and based on that your