In re Marriage of Alpert Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and they know it. When the First District Appellate Court handed down In re Marriage of Alpert Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629, it sent a clear signal to every high-net-worth litigant in Illinois: your post-divorce wealth accumulation is not a fortress. It's a target.

If you're representing the custodial parent of children whose noncustodial parent has experienced a substantial increase in wealth since the original marital settlement agreement, this case just handed you a roadmap. If you're on the other side? Your MSA provisions aren't the shield you thought they were.

The Facts: A $37 Million Trust and a Lifestyle Gap

Amanda Alpert Knight and Robert Greenwell Knight III divorced in 2015. Their marital settlement agreement set child support at $10,000 per month and documented Robert's gross income range at the time: between $600,000 and $1.6 million annually. The MSA also acknowledged Robert's substantial nonmarital family trusts—valued at approximately $37 million or more.

Fast forward to 2021. Amanda filed a motion to increase child support to $25,000 per month, alleging that Robert's income and net worth had grown substantially since the divorce. More critically, she argued that the children were experiencing a materially higher standard of living when in Robert's care—a divergence that demanded correction.

Discovery became a battlefield. The circuit court limited Amanda's access to trust documents, permitting discovery only into trusts that named the children as beneficiaries. The court also excluded testimony from Amanda's experts regarding necessary home repairs and child-related expenses. Despite Robert's own admission that he could pay any reasonable increase in support and did not intend to assert inability to pay, the circuit court found no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.

Amanda appealed. And she won.

The Legal Question: When Does Post-Judgment Wealth Trigger Modification?

The central issue before the appellate court was straightforward but consequential: Does a noncustodial parent's substantial post-judgment increase in income or net worth—resulting in a materially different standard of living for the children—constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting child support modification?

The answer, according to the First District: Yes.

The Court's Reasoning: Children's Needs Trump Asset Characterization

The appellate court reversed in part and remanded, holding that the circuit court erred in finding no substantial change in circumstances. The opinion delivers several critical holdings that will reshape modification litigation in Illinois:

First, the court emphasized that child support modification analysis focuses on three pillars: the children's needs, the parents' ability to pay, and the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the marriage continued. A parent's post-judgment wealth and lifestyle are directly relevant to this analysis—even when those assets are characterized as nonmarital.

Second, the court found that limiting trust discovery to only those trusts naming the children as beneficiaries was error. When a parent's ability to pay is at issue and trust assets plausibly relate to that capacity, broader discovery is warranted. The nonmarital characterization of trust assets does not insulate them from relevance in a support modification proceeding.

Third, the exclusion of Amanda's expert testimony regarding home repairs and child-related expenses was reversible error. Evidence demonstrating the comparative standard of living between households goes directly to the modification analysis. Excluding it undermines the court's ability to make an informed determination.

Fourth—and this is the tactical nuclear option—Robert's admission that he could pay any reasonable increase and would not assert inability to pay effectively conceded a critical element of the modification analysis. That admission will follow him on remand.

Practice Implications: Strategic Mandates for Illinois Family Lawyers

This decision demands immediate tactical adjustments from practitioners on both sides of high-asset modification disputes:

For Custodial Parents Seeking Modification:

• Pursue aggressive discovery into trust assets. The court has signaled that relevance to ability-to-pay analysis can overcome objections based on nonmarital characterization. Document every request; preserve every objection for appeal.
• Retain and proffer expert testimony on child-related expenses. Exclusion of such evidence can now be cited as reversible error. Build your record meticulously.
• Document the lifestyle divergence. Photographs, expense records, school communications, vacation documentation—anything demonstrating that the children experience a materially different standard of living with the higher-earning parent strengthens your modification argument.

For Noncustodial Parents Defending Against Modification:

• Revisit your MSA provisions immediately. Income ranges and deviation clauses do not foreclose future modification. If permanent waiver of modification rights was intended, the agreement must contain explicit, unambiguous language to that effect. Ambiguity will be construed against you.
• Be strategic about admissions. Robert's concession that he could pay any reasonable increase eliminated a defense. Tactical admissions can streamline litigation, but they also close doors permanently.
• Prepare for expanded discovery. Trust structures that seemed impenetrable are now subject to scrutiny when support modification is at issue. Coordinate with your estate planning counsel before discovery disputes escalate.

The Future of High-Asset Modification in Illinois

Alpert Knight establishes that post-divorce wealth accumulation—particularly through trusts and investment growth—cannot be walled off from child support analysis. The children's right to share in their parents' standard of living survives divorce, and that right evolves as circumstances change.

For high-net-worth individuals, this means that strategic planning at the time of divorce is more critical than ever. MSA provisions must be drafted with precision, anticipating future wealth accumulation and explicitly addressing modification rights. Vague income ranges and boilerplate deviation clauses will not hold.

For litigators, this case is a masterclass in the importance of discovery preservation, expert testimony, and appellate strategy. The circuit court's errors were systematic—and each one was reversible.

The message from the First District is unambiguous: when a parent's wealth grows substantially post-divorce, the children are entitled to benefit. And the courts will ensure they do.

If you're facing a high-asset modification dispute—whether seeking an increase or defending against one—the time to act is now. The opposition is already preparing. Book a consultation with our team today and ensure you're not the one on the back foot.