Court Opinion

ID: 9379996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-16 20:03:36.494299+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:57.475450
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and is not precedent except
            in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).

                                         2023 IL App (3d) 220018-U

                                  Order filed March 16, 2023
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                   IN THE

                                    APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS

                                             THIRD DISTRICT

                                                     2023

      In re MARRIAGE OF                                )       Appeal from the Circuit Court
      DAVID OSWALD,                                    )       of the 12th Judicial Circuit,
                                                       )       Will County, Illinois,
             Petitioner-Appellee,                      )
                                                       )       Appeal No. 3-22-0018
             and                                       )       Circuit No. 13-D-1692
                                                       )
      JULIE E. OSWALD,                                 )       Honorable
                                                       )       Derek Ewanic,
             Respondent-Appellant.                     )       Judge, Presiding.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

            JUSTICE ALBRECHT delivered the judgment of the court.
            Justices Brennan and Peterson concurred in the judgment.
      ____________________________________________________________________________

                                                  ORDER

¶1          Held: The court did not abuse its discretion when it entered an order modifying
                  maintenance and child support.

¶2          Petitioner David Oswald filed a petition to modify maintenance and child support.

     Following a hearing, the Will County circuit court entered an order modifying both. Respondent

     Julie E. Oswald appeals, arguing that the circuit court’s modification constituted an abuse of

     discretion. We affirm.
¶3                                          I. BACKGROUND

¶4          David and Julie were married on March 20, 1999. During their marriage, the parties had

     two children, B.O. and P.O. David filed a Petition for Dissolution on September 17, 2013. On

     June 17, 2015, a judgment of dissolution was entered, which incorporated the parties’ previously

     agreed upon marriage settlement agreement (MSA) and custody agreement.

¶5          At the time of the parties’ dissolution of marriage, David was employed at PNC

     Mortgage, and his gross income was approximately $145,000.00 including commissions. Julie

     was employed as a real estate agent. Julie worked part time for most of the marriage due to

     behavioral issues with the parties’ younger child. At the time of judgment, Julie was earning

     approximately $18,000.00.

¶6          When the dissolution judgment was entered, the parties’ children were still minors.

     Pursuant to the MSA, David was ordered to pay $450.46 bi-weekly in child support, which

     amounted to 28% of his net income, the statutory requirement at the time of dissolution. In

     addition, David paid “as and for modifiable and reviewable maintenance” $213.09 bi-weekly.

     Due to the flexibility in the parties’ income, David and Julie were required to exchange tax

     returns every year to verify the amount David paid was accurate after including David’s

     commission into his reported salary.

¶7          In December 2018, an agreed order was entered adjusting both child support and

     maintenance. Pursuant to the agreed order, David’s total monthly payments were increased to

     $1,022.00 in child support and $2,571.00 in maintenance. These calculations were based on a

     three-year average of David’s gross earnings, equaling approximately $150,000.00. By this time,

     Julie’s gross income had increased to approximately $50,000. The maintenance amount was

     calculated based on the guidelines set forth in 750 ILCS 5/504 (West 2018). The statute required

                                                     2
     that maintenance should be 30% David’s gross income, less 20% Julie’s gross income, subject to

     a cap on Julie’s gross income and maintenance award at 40% of the parties’ combined gross

     income. Id. The agreed order also eliminated the requirement that the parties exchange financial

     documents every year to verify support amounts were accurate. The reason for this requirement

     was because both parties’ incomes included commissions and had the potential to change from

     year to year.

¶8          On March 1, 2021, David filed a petition to modify his maintenance and support

     obligations. In his motion, David argued that he accepted a new position at loanDepot and

     anticipated a 10% decrease in income as a result. He also alleged that Julie’s income had

     substantially increased and that there was a substantial change in circumstances due to that

     change in income, warranting a modification in maintenance and child support.

¶9          On November 18, 2021, a hearing took place on David’s petition. At the hearing, David

     testified that one of the parties’ children was 21 years old and in college. The other was 16 and in

     high school. He further testified that he left PNC Mortgage to work at loanDepot due to

     restructuring at PNC. He anticipated that he would receive a decrease in pay because of his

     change in employment. In reality, David’s income increased, partly because he received a one-

     time sign on bonus and also because he had been working long hours and weekends. He filed his

     taxes jointly with his wife, and his wife’s employer covered health insurance for the entire

     family. He also shared all living expenses with his wife. David was not exercising any of his

     parenting time. At the time of filing his latest financial affidavit in September 2021, David had

     approximately $700,000.00 worth of assets in property, various bank accounts, investments, and

     retirement accounts. His gross income through September 15, 2021, was an estimated

     $153,000.00.

                                                      3
¶ 10          Julie testified that she had an increase in income due to productivity coaching she

       conducted online during the pandemic. She anticipated her income to decrease now that there

       was not as much of a demand for online coaching, and she could not take as many clients when

       coaching in person. Additionally, she testified that her position as a real estate agent meant that

       the bulk of her income came during the summer months. She did not anticipate earning any more

       the rest of the year. According to her affidavit filed in November 2021, she had approximately

       $400,000.00 in assets in various checking, savings, and investment accounts, a retirement

       account, the marital home, and vehicles. She estimated her gross business receipts for the year to

       be approximately $216,000, $43,000 of which she estimated would be spent on business

       expenses.

¶ 11          After the hearing, the circuit court found that Julie’s increase in income constituted a

       substantial change in circumstances that was not contemplated by the parties in their 2018 agreed

       order. Her gross income had increased from $51,000 to over $200,000 in three years’ time,

       which the court calculated to be an increase of nearly 3 ½ times her previous income. It found

       that there was nothing in the 2018 agreed order to indicate that the parties intended to prevent the

       other from requesting modifications to it. Further, the court reviewed the statutory factors that

       applied when considering whether to modify maintenance and found that modification would be

       appropriate in this case. The court ordered the parties to submit new calculations of support, with

       an average income figured by the parties’ tax returns from the last three years.

¶ 12          The parties returned to court on December 6, 2021, stating that they had not reached an

       agreement on calculations. Julie’s attorney raised a concern regarding the income David’s

       attorney used in calculations. David’s income did not include numbers related to his real estate

       business or any income beyond September 15, 2021. Julie’s income was provided up to October

                                                         4
       31, 2021, and David’s calculations did not reflect the $43,000.00 in business expenses that

       should be removed from her anticipated income for the year. Further, David did not provide an

       exact cost of the health insurance he was required to keep on his children. He stated that six

       people were covered by the insurance plan: his wife, him, his two children, and her two children.

       In order to calculate his costs of insurance, he simply allotted himself a credit for two-sixths of

       the health insurance premium.

¶ 13          On December 8, 2021, the court entered an order modifying the amount of child support,

       increasing it to $1,073 per month. The order stated that it used the statutory calculations set out

       in 750 ILCS 5/505 and based the calculations on David’s three-year average income of

       $173,000.00 and Julie’s three-year average income of $124,000.00. David’s proposed order also

       terminated maintenance; however, the court clarified that it was modifying maintenance instead

       of terminating it. It modified maintenance by decreasing the monthly amount to $0 and ordered

       for the regular production of income information to determine whether maintenance must be

       modified in the future. Julie appealed.

¶ 14                                              II. ANALYSIS

¶ 15          On appeal, Julie argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by reducing David’s

       maintenance obligation to $0. Specifically, she contends that the circuit court made a calculation

       error and that the maintenance award should not have been reduced. She also argues that the

       court erred in its child support calculations.

¶ 16          In support of his petition to modify maintenance and support, David presented evidence

       that Julie’s gross income increased from $51,000.00 to over $200,000.00. Based on this change

       in circumstances, the circuit court recalculated support resulting in an increase in monthly child

                                                         5
       support from $1,022.00 to $1,073.00 per month and a reduction in the monthly maintenance

       payment to $0.

¶ 17          The decision to modify a maintenance award is within the trial court’s discretion and will

       not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion. In re Marriage of Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, ¶ 24.

       An abuse of discretion occurs when “the trial court’s ruling is arbitrary, fanciful, unreasonable,

       or where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the trial court.” Id.

¶ 18          Section 510(a-5) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) provides

       that an order for maintenance may be modified “only upon a showing of a substantial change in

       circumstances.” 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5) (West 2020). The party seeking the modification has the

       burden of showing that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred. In re Marriage of

       Logston, 103 Ill. 2d 266, 287 (1984).

¶ 19          In deciding whether to modify maintenance, the court must consider the same factors set

       forth in section 504(a) of the Act that are to be considered at the time that maintenance is initially

       awarded, which include: (1) the income and property of both parties; (2) the needs of each party;

       (3) the present and future earning capacity of each party; (4) any impairment of the earning

       capacity of the party seeking maintenance due to that party devoting time to domestic duties or

       having forgone or delayed education, training, employment, or career opportunities due to the

       marriage; (5) any impairment of the present or future earning capacity of the party against whom

       maintenance is sought; (6) the time required for the party seeking maintenance to acquire

       appropriate education, training, and employment, and whether that party is able to support

       himself or herself through appropriate employment or any parental responsibility arrangements

       and its effect on the party seeking employment; (7) the standard of living established during the

       marriage; (8) the duration of the marriage; (9) the age, health, station, occupation, amount and

                                                         6
       sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, and the needs of each of

       the parties; (10) all sources of public and private income; (11) the tax consequences of the

       property division; (12) the contributions and services by the party seeking maintenance to the

       education, training, career or career potential, or license of the other spouse; (13) other valid

       agreements of the parties; and (14) any other factor that the court expressly finds to be just and

       equitable. 750 ILCS 5/504(a) (West 2020).

¶ 20          The section 510(a-5) factors that should also be considered when determining whether to

       modify or terminate maintenance include: (1) changes in employment status and whether the

       changes were made in good faith; (2) the efforts, if any, made by the party receiving maintenance

       to become self-supporting, and the reasonableness of those efforts; (3) any impairment of the

       present and future earning capacity of either party; (4) the tax consequences of the maintenance

       payments; (5) the duration of the maintenance payments previously paid (and remaining to be

       paid) relative to the length of the marriage; (6) the property, including retirement benefits,

       awarded to each party under the judgment of dissolution of marriage and the present status of the

       property; (7) the increase or decrease in each party's income since the prior judgment or order

       from which a review, modification, or termination is being sought; (8) the property acquired and

       currently owned by each party after the entry of the judgment of dissolution of marriage; and (9)

       any other factor that the court expressly finds to be just and equitable. 750 ILCS 5/510(a-5)(1)-

       (9).

¶ 21          In this case, the court provided a detailed explanation of its application of the statutory

       factors. In determining that a substantial change occurred, the court specifically considered the

       parties’ incomes and assets, expenses of the children, the parties’ earning capacities, any

       impairment on future earnings, and standard of living during the marriage. It also distinguished

                                                         7
       this case from In re Marriage of Connelly, 2020 IL App (3d) 180193, ¶ 26, which Julie cited to

       support her position. In Connelly, this court found that an increase in income of approximately

       12% was not a significant increase for the purposes of determining whether to modify

       maintenance. Id. This court held that the increase could be offset by the increasing costs of

       raising children. Further, the mother’s income was still less than half of the father’s income.

       Here, however, the circuit court found that an increase of three times Julie’s previous salary was

       enough to find that a substantial change had occurred and warranted modification of

       maintenance and support. Julie’s salary also increased to the point that it is almost equal to

       David’s income. In light of these factors, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its

       discretion in finding a substantial change in circumstances.

¶ 22          We next address the modification itself. Where a party has shown such a substantial

       change in circumstances, the court may modify maintenance obligations, but it is not required to

       do so. In re Marriage of Anderson, 409 Ill. App. 3d 191, 204 (2011). After determining whether

       a substantial change has occurred, the court must then consider whether a modification is

       warranted under the factors listen in sections 510(a-5) and 504(a) of the Act. 750 ILCS 5/510(a-

       5); Heroy, 2017 IL 120205, ¶ 25. After weighing these factors, the court may decide that, even

       though a substantial change has occurred, a modification is not justified. Anderson, 409 Ill. App.

       3d at 204.

¶ 23          Julie argues that the court did not sufficiently consider the parties’ financial

       circumstances and miscalculated her earnings when it did not subtract her estimated $43,000

       business expenses from her $216,000 gross business income. Under 750 ILCS 5/504, calculation

       of maintenance shall be calculated by taking 30% of David’s gross income, minus 20% of Julie’s

       gross income. The amount in maintenance, when added to Julie’s gross income, may not exceed

                                                        8
       40% of the combined gross income of the parties. Id. Even deducting $43,000 from Julie’s gross

       business income ($170,000) and calculating maintenance based on the above calculations (using

       David’s average of $173,000 a year), Julie’s income and maintenance would still exceed the

       statutory cap. Her current salary is almost equal to David’s salary. When evaluating maintenance

       based on the last three years’ salaries and deducting the $43,000 in business expenses, the

       amount of Julie’s income and maintenance would also exceed the cap. Thus, the circuit court did

       not abuse its discretion in calculating maintenance and support.

¶ 24                                          III. CONCLUSION

¶ 25          The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is affirmed.

¶ 26          Affirmed.

                                                       9