Analysis of In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell: A Landmark Child Support Case

Summary

In this nonprecedential Rule 23 order, the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, reviewed the St. Clair County circuit court's recalculation of child support and maintenance after the Illinois Supreme Court held, in an earlier appeal in the same case, that mandatory distributions and withdrawals from an inherited IRA must be included in calculating Mark Schell's child support and maintenance obligations. The appellate court reversed in part because, on remand, the circuit court recalculated support and maintenance beginning in March 2017 rather than from the original October 2016 dissolution judgment, as the supreme court's mandate required. It affirmed the rulings on interest on credit card debt and on medical expenses because the appellant forfeited those arguments. This decision is discussed here only as an illustration of how the governing child support rules have been applied.

The decision in In re Marriage of Sandra D. Dahm-Schell and Mark R. Schell, No. 5-23-0529, filed August 30, 2024, by the Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District, addresses how a circuit court must carry out a supreme court mandate to recalculate child support and maintenance. Justice Moore delivered the judgment of the court, with Justices Boie and McHaney concurring. The appeal came from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Judge Patrick J. Foley presiding. The case involves inherited IRA distributions, credit card debt, medical expenses, and the interpretation of a prior court mandate. The 2024 order (2024 IL App (5th) 230529-U) is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order that is not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1); the governing rule comes from the Illinois Supreme Court's 2021 decision in the same case, In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2021 IL 126802.

Key Facts of the Case

Sandra and Mark married in 1992, and Sandra filed for dissolution in 2014. While the case was pending, Mark inherited approximately $615,000 from his mother, which the parties stipulated was his nonmarital property. The circuit court entered the judgment of dissolution on October 11, 2016, and initially counted only the dividends from the inherited IRAs, not the inheritance itself, as Mark's income for support purposes. On March 28, 2017, Mark petitioned to reduce child support and maintenance after his employer cut his pay by 20%. In 2018 the circuit court declined to include Mark's mandatory inherited-IRA distributions in income. The Fifth District, in In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2020 IL App (5th) 200099, held that such mandatory distributions constitute income under 750 ILCS 5/504(b-3) and 5/505(a)(3), and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed on November 18, 2021, remanding with directions to recalculate child support and maintenance. On remand, the circuit court's April 18, 2023, order made the modification retroactive to March 28, 2017, found that Mark underpaid child support by $1804 and overpaid maintenance by $15,835.62, held Sandra in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay $3838.44 in credit card debt as ordered in the December 28, 2017, judgment (awarding Mark $6026.31 including 9% simple interest, plus $875 in attorney fees), and held Mark in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay his $1164.84 share of the children's medical bills (awarding Sandra $1000 in attorney fees).

Main Legal Question

Sandra raised five issues on appeal: whether Mark proved a substantial change in circumstances and whether retroactive modification was an abuse of discretion (combined), whether the court erred in refusing to consider her motion to increase child support, whether the court erred in not awarding interest on overdue medical expenses, and whether the court erred in awarding Mark interest on the unpaid credit card debt. The appellate court treated the support issues as turning on whether the circuit court complied with the Illinois Supreme Court's mandate, which had already held that the mandatory IRA distributions and withdrawals must be included in calculating Mark's child support and maintenance and had directed a recalculation. Whether a circuit court complied with an appellate mandate is reviewed de novo.

Court’s Reasoning

The appellate court held that the circuit court failed to completely follow the supreme court's mandate because it recalculated child support and maintenance beginning in March 2017 instead of back to the original judgment of dissolution entered in October 2016. Neither party challenged the circuit court's calculations of the amounts overpaid and underpaid, and, as Sandra's counsel conceded at oral argument, the mandate already required a recalculation. The court therefore reversed that portion of the April 18, 2023, order and remanded with directions to recalculate child support and maintenance for the period beginning October 11, 2016, through March 2017, and to modify the underpaid or overpaid amounts accordingly. This resolved Sandra's first three issues.

The order did not revisit whether inherited IRA distributions are income; that question had already been answered by the Illinois Supreme Court in 2021 IL 126802. The 2024 order is instead an application of that mandate to the period that the recalculation must cover.

The court affirmed the remaining portions of the circuit court’s order: the award of interest to Mark on the credit card debt and the award of $1164.84 to Sandra for the children's medical expenses without interest. It found Sandra forfeited these issues under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7) because her brief cited no legal authority on them, noted that the transcript of the February 2, 2023, hearing was incomplete (with doubts resolved against the appellant), and found no obvious error in the record that would warrant overlooking the forfeiture.

Conclusions and Implications

The appellate court's order in In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell is a nonprecedential Rule 23 order. The rule that mandatory distributions from an inherited IRA count as income for support comes from the Supreme Court's 2021 decision (2021 IL 126802, ¶ 65); the 2024 order applies that mandate to the recalculation, requiring it to reach back to the October 2016 dissolution judgment.

The case also illustrates that failure to comply with prior court orders can lead to contempt findings: here, the circuit court held Sandra in indirect civil contempt over the credit card debt and Mark in indirect civil contempt over the children's medical bills.

Finally, the order shows the consequences of an underdeveloped appellate brief: issues argued without citation to authority, or on an incomplete record, may be deemed forfeited.

References

• In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230529-U (Rule 23 order; not precedent except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1))
• In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2021 IL 126802
• In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2020 IL App (5th) 200099
• 750 ILCS 5/504(b-3); 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3)

Full Opinion (PDF): Read the opinion on the Illinois Courts site

Related Articles

• Analysis of In re Marriage of Alpert Knight: Child Support Modification and Its Implications
• Analysis of In re Marriage of Bedard: A Landmark Case in Family Law
• Analysis of In re Marriage of Erikson: A Landmark Decision on Child Relocation

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, ISC2 CC, Google Cybersecurity Professional Certificate). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Request Conflict Check

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.