1 NOTI CE Decisi on fi led 10 /15/ 08. The textof this dec ision m ay be changed or
corrected prior to the filing of a Petit ion for Re hea ri ng o r th e dispos it ion of

the s ame. NO. 5-07-0312 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

________________________________________________________________________ In re ES TA TE OF JO SE PH D. H UD SO N, ) Appeal from the JR., Deceas ed ) Circui t Court of ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. (Donna Sobkoviak, ) ) Petition er-A ppella nt, ) ) v. ) No. 04-P-749 ) Theresa Schl echte, Executri x, ) Ho nora ble ) Clarence W. H arrison II, Respo ndent-A ppellee). ) Judge, presi ding.

________________________________________________________________________ JUS TIC E G OL DE NH ER SH delive red the opin ion o f the c ourt: Petitioner, Donna S obkoviak, filed claims for "chil d's awards" und er the P roba te Act of 1975 (Probat e Act) (755 I LCS 5/15-2(b) ( West 2006)) and for child s upport under

the Illinois Marriage and D issoluti on of M arriage Act (Marriage Act) (750 ILCS 5 /510(d) (West 20 06)) in probat e proceedi ngs for the estate of the decede nt, J oseph D. Hudson, Jr., in th e circuit court of Madison C ounty. The circui t court granted chil d's awards pursu ant t o the Prob ate Act, bu t it

de ni eda c la imfo r f

utur e c hi ld

suppo rt und er th e Mar ri ag e Ac t. On appe al, petitioner r aises issues regarding whether the circuit court erred by finding t hatthe provisi ons fo r a ch ild 's award under the Probate Act and for chil d support unde r the Marri age Ac t are d upl icativ e an d m and ate a n offse t. W e rev erse and rem and

. FACTS Petitioner

and dec ede nt w ere m arrie d on Feb rua ry 15, 1 986 . T he pro duct o f their union was two childr en, one born in 1987 and one born in 1989. The parti es were divor ced
on November 15, 1998. Dece dent agree d to pay child supp ort to petitioner "for the su pport2

of the children of the parti es $273 each two w eeks." Decedent died on July 15, 2004. A probate proceeding was opened on November 19, 200 4. R esp ond ent w as a ppo inted to b e the exe cutr ix. On February

15, 2005, pe titioner fi leda claim in the probate proc eeding. Petitioner made demands on behalf of t he chil dren tot aling $20, 000 under the c hild' s award provi sions of the Probate Act (755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (West 200 6)). Sh e also m ade d ema nds for un paid and fu ture child supp ort under the M arriage A ct (750 ILC S 5/510 (d) (We st 2006)). On October 10, 2006, the court entere d an order r equiring the est ate t o pay $10, 000 to each minor within 10 days . The court ordered the estat e and peti tioner to submit

proposed orders on the remaining issues. On October25, 2006 , the court entered a detailed order. The court found t hat the total amount owed for child su ppo rt throu gh th e date of d eath was $3,299. The cour t st ated that underthe divorce d ecree 72 f uture child sup port payme nts w ould be du e until emancipati on, total ing $19,656, but

it r uled that the estat e w as req uired to pay only the past-d ue ch ild support in the amount of $3, 299. The court s tate d, "The [c] ourt finds that the provi sions of [secti on 15-2(b) of

the Probat e Act (755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (W est 2004))] and [sect ion 510(d) of the Marria ge Act (750 ILCS 5/510(d) (West 2004)) ] are to be a pplied wit hout dup licatio n." Af ter re con side ratio n, th e co urt re aff irme d th e jud gm ent. P etitio ner app eals

. AN AL YS IS The Probate A ct provides as follows: "(b) If a deceas ed resi dent of this State le aves no su rviving spou se, there shall be allow ed to all childr en of the de cede nt w ho w ere m inors a t the da te of death and all adu lt dep end ent

chi ldre n, exe mptfr om the e nfo rc ement o f a j udg me nt , gar nish me nt[,] or a ttach me nt in the p oss essio n of the r epr ese ntati ve, a sum of money3

that the court deems reasonabl e forthe proper support of

those chi ldren for

the period of 9 months afte r the deat

h of the decedent

in a manner suitedto the c onditi on in li fe of those chi ldren and to the condi tion of t he estate. The award mayin no case be less than $5,000 for ea ch of those chi ldren, togethe r with an additionalsum not les s than $10,000 that

shall be divide d equ allyamon g those ch ildren or appo rtioned as the co urt directs and that

shallbe paid for

the benefi t of

any of those chi ldren to any per son that the court directs." 755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (W est 2006). The M arriage Act provides: "(d) Unless othe rwise provi ded in this A ct, or as a greed in w riting or e xpre ssly providedin the judgm ent, provisions fo r t he su ppo rt o f a chil d are te rminate d by emancipati on of the child, o r if the c hild ha s atta ine d the a ge of 18 an d is still atte nding high school , provi sions for the support of

the chi ld are terminat ed upon the date that t

he chil d graduate s from highschool or the dat e the chi ld attains the age of 19, whichever i s earl ier, but not by the de ath of a par en t obli gated t o support or educ ate the c hild

. An existi ng obligation to pay for support

or educat ional expenses,
or both, i s not t erminat ed by t he death of a parent . When a parent obl igate d to pay support or educational expenses, or both, di es, the amount of support or

educati onal expenses, or both, may

be enforced, modified, revoked[, ] or commuted t o a lump sum payme nt, as eq uity may req uire, an d that d etermi na tion may be provided f

or at t he ti me of the diss olution of the marriage or thereafter." 750 ILCS 5/510(d) (W est 2006). The trial court denied the c laim for fu ture child s upport under the Marria ge Act based
on a f in di ng th at t he aw ar d m us t b e o ffse t b y th e c hi ld 's award made under the Prob ate A ct. The court s truck t

he award for future chil d support, stating that the two st atute s "are to be applie d without dupl icat ion." The context of the award i ndicat es that the court bas ed its4

award on t

he be li ef th at th e two stat

utes were dupl icat ive and re quiredthe offset . See In re Marriage of Lehr , 317 Il l. App. 3d 853, 858, 740 N.E.2d 417, 421 ( 2000) (an or dershou ld be read in conte xt to gi ve effect to the ap paren t intent o f the tria l court). O n app eal, bo th parti es frame the issue a s whether t he provis ions of t

he Probate Act

supersede the provi sions of the Marri age Act. The t rialcourt er

red by finding t he stat utes t o be duplic ative

. The two statu tes d o no t con flict. The tri al court apparent ly

found a discr epancyin the referenc e to the " supp ort" in the chi ld' s award section of the Probate Act (755 IL CS 5 /15-2 ( We st 200 6)). T he rele vant p rovisio n estab lishes th at if an Illinois res ident d ies w ithout a surviving spouse, each surviving minor chi ld mus t b e a wa rded from the estat e a nondiscre tionary minimum of $ 5, 000 . 7 55 I LCS 5/15-2(b) (West 2006) . According to the provisi on, a court may award more t han th e mi ni mum $5 ,0 00 b as ed o n what " th e co urt d eems
reaso nable for the proper support of those chi ldrenfor the period of 9 mo nths a fter the death of the de cede nt in a manner suit ed to the conditi on in li fe of those c hildr en." 755 I LCS 5/15- 2(b) (W est 2006). De spite the us e of th e term "support, " the pl ain language of the pr ovisi on indicates that a c hild's aw ard is se parate from an aw ard fo r child s upp ort. Th e term "sup port" in the Prob ate Act is disti nct from "child support" in the Marriage Act. 755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (West 2006); 750 ILC S 5 /50 5, 510 (West 2006). The term "suppor t" i s used in t

he context

of granting the court

discr etion to award more than th e statutory minimum, and not as a prereq uisite for a child's aw ard. F urther mo re, this disc retion is worded in genera l ter ms of what the court

"deems reas onable" ( 755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (West 2006)) , as oppos ed t o the statutoryguidelines and fact ors defi n in g ch il d su ppo rt inth e Marri age Act(7 50 I LCS 5/505(a) (West 2006); se e In re M arriag e of D iFatta , 306 Il l. App. 3d 656, 663, 714 N. E.2d 109 2, 10 97 ( 199 9)). A child' s award, cons idering the pla in langua ge of sect ion 15-2 as a wh ole , is5

independent

from chil d support. 755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (West 2006). A child' s award, by exclusi on, is not

requir ed when a child l ives wit h the sur viving s pouse of

the decedent, but thi s d oes not mean that the child' s award is intert wined with chi ld support . Nowhere does the child's award provision of the Probate Act call for an offset of child support or otherwise refer to the Marriage Act. Subsecti on (a) of s ecti on 15-2 addres ses si tuati ons in which t he decedent was married at the time of d eath, and it provid es an aw ard if a chi ld does not live with the surviving spouse. 755 ILCS 5/15-2(a) (West 2006). A n aw ard under thi s subsection is not depen dent on chi ld support but on the maritalstat

us of the dec edent at

the time of dea th. Of

most import ance, t

he appli cable pr ovisi on of secti on 15-2, s ubsecti on (b), does not address the dis solut ion of marriages. 755 ILCS 5/15-2(b) (West 2006). I nstead, subsect ion (b) covers the e state of a ny de ced ent w ho l eav es n o su rviv ing spo use . The provisi on applie s
e ven if there was never a divorce, such a s when childr en were born out of wedl ock or the de ce de nt 's spouse prede ceased hi m. Further more, even in cases of a divorce, t he provis ion makes no d istinc tion reg ard ing child sup por t. Indeed, under thi s provis ion, t he estate of an unmarried

parent t hat had been r eceivi ng ch ild su pp or t is ob lig ate d t o m ak e a ch ild 's award. 755 IL CS 5 /15-2(b) (W est 2006). Upon reading s ecti on 510 o f the Marri ag e Ac t ( 750 IL CS 5 /5 10 ( Wes t 2 006 )) , w e
conc lude th at there is no a ppe ar an ce of

co nf li ct . T wo subs ection s of se ction 5 10 in tegrate the Probate Act. Subsection (e) provides that claims for child support against an estate are treated as barr able, noncontinge nt clai ms under the Pr obate Act for purposes of timeliness. 750 ILCS 5/510(e) (West 2006). In tur n, subse ction ( d) grant s the t rialcourt broad discr etion to fashion c hild suppo rt after an obligor's death. 75 0 ILC S 5/510 (d) (We st 2006). Sub secti on (d) conte mpl at es chi ldsup port o per at in g i n t and em wi thother cl ai ms agai nst t he es tate ac co rd in g t o prin cipl es of equi ty . S ubs ec ti on ( d) ex pr es slyst at es , " An6

exis ting obligation to pay for support

*** is not

terminated by

the deat h of a parent ." 75 0 ILC S 5/ 510(d) (West

2006). Alt

hough the Probat e Act is not specifi call y menti oned, subsect ion (d) gi ves the t rialcourt broa d powers t o craf t the co ntinuin g aw ard o f child support in li ght of othe r equit able matt ers i n the probate proceedi ng. Subsection (d) does not
man date an offset of

any award made to the chi ldren under the Probat e Act. Ins tead, the trial court is gi ven autho rity to enfo rce, m odify, rev oke, o r com mu te child s upport "a s equit y may req uire ." 75 0 IL CS 5/5 10( d) (W est 2 006 ). Thus, the Marria ge Act does not require an offs et for th e c hi ld 's awards made pursuant to the Prob ate A ct. An y mod ification of ch ild sup port is discr etionary . The trial c ourt er red by rulin g th at the off set w as m and ated by du plica tion in th e sta tutes
. This court i s unable to further resol ve petitio ner' s claim, so the matter must be remanded. An a ppellate court m ay affirm a trial court based on any evidence in the rec ord. Monarski v. Greb , 407 Ill. 281, 291, 95 N .E.2d 433 , 439 (195 0). Becau se the issue before this court and t

he tri al court

was whet her an o ffset was mandat ed, the record i s sil ent on whetherequity

call ed for ano ffset, and the trialcourt di d not reac h the question of what equity req uire d in this m atter
. Upon re ma nd, the trial cou rt is to dete rmine wh ether to enforce, modi fy , r evo ke, orcommute child suppo rt "a s e qui ty

may re qui re ." 750 ILCS 5/5 10( d) (W est 2 006 ). CONCLUS ION A cc or di ng ly, the ord er of th e circu it c ourt is here by revers ed, an d the m atter is
rem and ed w ith d irect ion s.
Reversed; cause remanded w ith directions.

STE WA RT , P.J., and WE XS TTE N, J., concur.NO. 5-07-0312 IN T HE AP PEL LA TE C OU RT OF ILLIN OIS

FIF TH DIST RICT

___________________________________________________________________________________ In re ES TA TE OF JO SE PH D. H UD SO N, ) Appeal from the JR., Deceas ed ) Circui t Court of ) M ad iso n C ou nt y. (Donna Sobkoviak, ) ) Petition er-A ppella nt, ) ) v. ) No. 04-P-749 ) Theresa Schl echte, Executri x, ) Ho nora ble ) Clarence W. H arrison II, Respo ndent-A ppellee). ) Judge, presi ding.

___________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion Filed : October 15, 2008

___________________________________________________________________________________ Justice s : Honorable R ichard P. Goldenhersh, J.

Honorable Bruce D. St ewart, P. J., and Ho nor able Jam es M . W exs tten, J ., Concur

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Steven M. Hamburg, Summers, Compton, Wells & Hamburg, P.C., 8909 Ladue for Road, St. Louis, MO 63124 Appell ant

___________________________________________________________________________________ Attorney Charles W. King, 1507 Troy Road #4, P.O. Box 277, Edwardsvi lle, IL 62025 for Appellee

___________________________________________________________________________________