Court Opinion

ID: 9711721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:37:44.193817+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:07.036356
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD dissenting: I respectfully dissent. The majority has concluded that a change in the husband’s circumstances, standing alone, authorizes an equitable division of his bonus. It is conceded also, that the bonus was a bookkeeping entry on the books of the corporation when the decree for divorce was entered and that the husband was guilty of no fraud or concealment. While the result has some appealing qualities in this particular case, it does violence to long accepted rales which authorize a modification of the decree when the needs of a wife and children have increased and the means of the father have also increased so as to enable him to make additional contributions. (Grinton v. Grinton (1970), (Ill.App.3d); 264 N.E.2d 845, 846; Patterson v. Patterson (1960), 28 Ill.App.2d 76, 78; Kelleher v. Kelleher (1966), 67 Ill.App.2d 410, 414.) Here no evidence has been presented that the needs of the petitioner or the children have increased. Further, we can find no precedent for awarding a fixed amount to the wife and children. If the receipt of the bonus has so improved the husband’s financial position so that he can now contribute more than called for by the decree, the proper relief is to increase the weekly payments. If the change in his financial position is not shown to be such that he can pay more on a weekly basis, the petition should be denied. I would reverse the judgment and remand for a further hearing consistent with the principles outlined.