______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

No. 2-19-0219 

Order filed November 15, 2019 

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as 

precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 

IN THE 

APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS 

SECOND DISTRICT 

In re MARRIAGE OF ) Appeal from the Circuit Court 

TAMI R. KELLERMAN, ) of Winnebago County. 

) 

Petitioner-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 12-D-1187 

) 

MICHAEL B. KELLERMAN, ) Honorable 

) Gwyn Gulley, 

Respondent-Appellant. ) Judge, Presiding. 

JUSTICE ZENOFF delivered the judgment of the court. 

Justices McLaren and Hutchinson concurred in the judgment. 

ORDER 

¶ 1 Held: (1) The trial court properly denied respondent’s petition to hold petitioner in civil 

contempt, as he did not seek compliance with any order; (2) the trial court did not 

deny respondent due process by suspending oral arguments and ordering written 

ones; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering respondent to pay 

70% of a child’s educational expenses, as the record did not show that the court 

understated petitioner’s income, which was substantially below respondent’s. 

¶ 2 On January 9, 2015, the circuit court of Winnebago County entered a judgment dissolving 

the marriage of Tami R. Kellerman and Michael B. Kellerman. Tami and Michael had three 

children: Jacob (born December 31, 1996), Noah (born August 14, 1999), and Layla (born July 5, 

2006). On June 26, 2018, Tami filed a petition for educational expenses. The petition does not 
 

 

 

 

 

 

2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

appear to have been included in the record. However, we are able to glean from the record that 

Tami sought to hold Michael responsible for a portion of Noah’s college expenses. In connection 

with the proceedings on Tami’s petition, Michael filed a petition to hold Tami in indirect civil 

contempt. The trial court entered orders: (1) granting Tami’s petition for educational expenses 

and ordering Michael to pay 70% of Noah’s college costs and (2) denying Michael’s petition to 

hold Tami in indirect civil contempt. Michael appeals pro se. We affirm. 

¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND 

¶ 4 At the hearing on Tami’s petition, which took place on August 8, 2018, the parties supplied 

the trial court with their financial affidavits. Although it appears that Tami’s affidavit is not part 

of the record on appeal, Michael made reference to its contents during the hearing, asserting that 

it did not accurately reflect her income. He stated that her pay stubs showed that she was paid 

$1944 every two weeks, which equaled $42,012 per year. Michael further stated that Tami’s 

affidavit did not include, as income, $1240 in monthly child support payments that she received 

from him. Michael also made reference to a different financial affidavit from Tami, which was 

dated October 17, 2017. He noted that that affidavit listed “monthly minor dependent expenses” 

in the total amount of $749 for both Noah and Layla. Michael further noted that the same amount 

appeared on her most recent affidavit, even though Noah was no longer a minor. Michael argued 

that the monthly minor dependent expenses should therefore have been reduced by at least 50%. 

¶ 5 Michael contended that Tami’s affidavit omitted $1400 to $1500 that she received, or 

should have received, from her live-in boyfriend.1 In addition, Michael maintained that Jacob, 

1 Michael stated that, at a prior hearing, Tami admitted that she received $1000 per month. 

Tami stated, “I have never seen any kind of transcript that says that I *** am receiving $1,000. 

- 2 -
2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

who lived with Tami, was an employed adult and was able to contribute $600 to $700 as rent and 

for payment of his share of household expenses. Michael maintained that those amounts should 

be treated as income. He contended that when Tami’s monthly income and expenses were properly 

calculated she had a positive cash flow of $1700. 

¶ 6 Michael’s financial affidavit, which was dated July 20, 2018, showed (1) a monthly gross 

income of $13,844; (2) deductions totaling $7130 for withheld taxes, payroll taxes, and insurance 

premiums; (3) the $1240 in child support; (4) $7186 in living expenses; and (5) monthly payments 

of $100 for credit card debt. According to the affidavit, Michael had a negative cash flow of $572. 

¶ 7 The trial court ruled that the parties would be responsible for college expenses totaling 

$12,471. With respect to the parties’ respective financial positions, the trial court made the 

following findings: 

“[Michael] provided check stubs which showed year-to-date annual income of 

$164,696.89. He also showed his expenses pursuant to his financial affidavit. There is a 

contribution to retirement of $1,583, housecleaning 105, repairs 285, entertainment, 150, 

gifts 130, donations $800, vacation 170, professional fees 380 for a total of $3,603. His 

financial affidavit indicated that he had a deficit of $572 which I find hard to believe 

considering his income, so at this point, I also looked at [Tami’s] financial affidavit and 

her earnings were $50,544 plus child support in the amount of *** $1,240 a month. She 

had a deficit of $3,260. Her discretionary spending was a lot less; so weighing the two it 

appears that [Michael] was in a position to pay significantly more towards the educational 

*** I have never said to this Court that I receive $1,000 from him.” 

- 3 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

expenses. I’m going to allocate it at 70/30 so that would be $8,729 for [Michael] and 

$3,741 for [Tami] ***.” 

In a colloquy that occurred after the trial court announced its ruling, Michael asked whether the 

court “include[d] the thousand dollars [Tami] gets from her boyfriend.” The trial court replied, 

“Yes, I did.” 

¶ 8 Michael moved to reconsider the order allocating college expenses. With respect to the 

question of whether Tami received any money from her boyfriend, Michael noted that, at a hearing 

held on June 16, 2015, Tami’s attorney stated that Tami’s boyfriend “does contribute a 1,000 a 

month to the rent.” Michael also filed a petition to hold Tami in indirect civil contempt on the 

basis that her financial affidavit falsely omitted the $1000 per month that she received from her 

boyfriend and that she had lied in court when she denied receiving the money. The trial court held 

a hearing on the motion to reconsider, but suspended the hearing before the parties had completed 

their arguments. The court instructed the parties to prepare written arguments. The court 

subsequently denied the motion to reconsider and the petition to hold Tami in contempt. This 

appeal followed. 

¶ 9 II. ANALYSIS 

¶ 10 Michael initially argues that the trial court erred in refusing to hold Tami in contempt for 

omitting from her financial affidavit the payments she purportedly received from her live-in 

boyfriend. Michael also contends that Tami should have been held in contempt for falsely stating 

in court that she had not previously told the court that she received money from her boyfriend. 

The argument is meritless. Michael sought to have Tami held in civil contempt. “A civil contempt 

charge is generally brought to compel compliance with a court order.” Windy City Limousine Co. 

- 4 -
 

 

 

2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

LLC v. Milazzo, 2018 IL App (1st) 162827, ¶ 38. Here, there was no order with which to compel 

compliance. Thus, Michael’s petition was properly denied. 

¶ 11 Michael next contends that he was deprived of due process of law when the trial court 

suspended the oral argument on his motion to reconsider and ordered the parties to submit written 

arguments. The argument is likewise meritless. “Requirements of due process are met by 

conducting an orderly proceeding in which a party receives adequate notice and an opportunity to 

be heard.” Reichert v. Court of Claims of State of Illinois, 203 Ill. 2d 257, 261 (2003). The 

opportunity to be heard does not necessarily entail the right to an oral argument. As the United 

States Supreme Court has noted: 

“[D]ue process of law has never been a term of fixed and invariable content. This is as true 

with reference to oral argument as with respect to other elements of procedural due process. 

For this Court has held in some situations that such argument is essential to a fair hearing, 

[citations], in others that argument submitted in writing is sufficient. [Citations.] 

*** [T]he right of oral argument as a matter of procedural due process varies from 

case to case in accordance with differing circumstances, as do other procedural regulations. 

Certainly the Constitution does not require oral argument in all cases where only 

insubstantial or frivolous questions of law, or indeed even substantial ones, are raised.” 

Federal Communications Commission v. WJR, The Goodwill Station, Inc., 337 U.S. 265, 

275-76 (1949). 

The issues raised in Michael’s motion to reconsider were not particularly complex and the 

pertinent facts were matters of record. Under the circumstances, between the oral and written 

arguments that were presented, Michael had an ample opportunity to be heard. 

- 5 -
 

 

 

 

 

 

2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

¶ 12 Finally, we consider Michael’s argument that the trial court erred by ordering him to pay 

70% of Noah’s educational expenses. Michael contends that the court’s decision was against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. According to Michael, the decision was based on Tami’s false 

assertion that she received no support from her live-in boyfriend. However, as noted, in response 

to a query from Michael, the trial court made clear it had included the $1000 in its determination 

of her financial situation. 

¶ 13 According to Michael, the financial affidavit that Tami submitted to the trial court at the 

August 8, 2018, hearing indicated that her monthly expenses exceeded her income by $3260. In 

essence, Michael reasons that, because the trial court recited the same figure, it did not make any 

adjustments to the income and expenses itemized on the affidavit. The argument assumes that, 

when the trial court remarked that Tami “had a deficit of $3,260,” the court was stating that that 

amount was the bottom line of its own cash flow analysis. However, the trial court might simply 

have been pointing out that $3260 was the amount that Tami reported in her affidavit as negative 

cash flow. Although the trial court could have been clearer on this point, the remark does not 

indicate that the court adopted that figure. 

¶ 14 Michael further contends that: 

“[T]he preponderance of the evidence shows that [Tami’s] actual and available income 

from her own salary at her job, the $1,240 per month child support she receives from 

[Michael], the reasonable financial contribution to house rent and utilities from her *** 

live in boyfriend, the reasonable financial contribution to house rent and utilities from her 

22 year old live in son who has a full-time job is enough total income to cover household 

and expenses for herself and the parties’s [sic] 12 year old daughter while being financially 

- 6 -
 

 

 

2019 IL App (2d) 190219-U 

able to contribute 50 percent of the parental share of college expense to the parties [sic] 

college son.” 

¶ 15 We disagree. The record does not show that Tami reported her salary inaccurately. 

Moreover, Michael cites no authority for imputing income to a party who allows an adult child to 

reside in his or her home rent-free. The failure to cite authority to support legal arguments results 

in forfeiture of the arguments. Midfirst Bank v. Abney, 365 Ill. App. 3d 636, 650 (2006). Even if 

Tami’s $1240 in monthly child support and $1000 in monthly payments from her boyfriend are 

added back to the negative cash flow figure ($3620) set forth in her financial affidavit, she would 

still be left with negative cash flow of $1380 per month. 

¶ 16 We note that “[a] trial court’s decision to award educational expenses will not be reversed 

absent an abuse of discretion.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Marriage of Deike, 381 

Ill. App. 3d 620, 627 (2008). In light of the disparity in the parties’ incomes, Tami’s negative cash 

flow, and the trial court’s finding—unchallenged in this appeal—that Michael’s discretionary 

spending substantially exceeded Tami’s, we cannot say that the trial court’s decision was an abuse 

of discretion. 

¶ 17 III. CONCLUSION 

¶ 18 For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Winnebago County is 

affirmed. 

¶ 19 Affirmed. 

- 7 -