In re Marriage of Ito, 2025 IL App (3d) 240641-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Ito, 2025 IL App (3d) 240641-U - Here is a two-sentence summary of the article: The Illinois Third District Court's decision in In re Marriage of Ito establishes that trial courts must strictly adhere to the limited scope of Section 2-615 motions, which only permit review of pleading sufficiency and not merits adjudication, thereby avoiding procedural ambush. The ruling also highlights the importance of precise drafting, evidentiary specificity, and strategic positioning in child support modification disputes, emphasizing that fundamentals win cases and opponents' mistakes can be capitalized upon by experienced counsel.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—and they don't even know it yet.

If you're litigating child support modifications in Illinois, the Third District just handed you a roadmap for avoiding procedural ambush. In re Marriage of Ito isn't precedential, but it's a masterclass in what happens when trial courts conflate pleading sufficiency with merits adjudication—and when sloppy MSA drafting creates openings your opponent will exploit for years.

Your opposition thought a Section 2-615 motion would end this fight early. The appellate court just told them they picked the wrong weapon.

The Setup: When "Imputed Income" Becomes a Battlefield

Nina Ito sought increased child support, alleging her financial circumstances had materially deteriorated since dissolution. She claimed unemployment, loss of disability benefits, and substantially reduced income. The original marital settlement agreement had imputed $60,000 in annual income to her—a common mechanism when a party is voluntarily underemployed or when parties negotiate support based on earning capacity rather than actual earnings.

Teruaki Ito's counsel moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, arguing the pleadings failed to state a cognizable claim. The trial court granted the motion.

That was the error.

The Appellate Court's Correction: Know Your Procedural Vehicles

The Third District reversed and remanded, delivering a pointed reminder about the limited scope of Section 2-615 review. The standard is unforgiving in its simplicity: accept all well-pled facts as true, draw reasonable inferences in the pleader's favor, and dismiss only if no set of facts consistent with the pleadings would entitle the movant to relief.

The trial court violated this standard by weighing extraneous facts and reaching the merits. That's not what a 2-615 motion permits. If you're defending against a modification petition and you need to introduce documents, affidavits, or adjudicative facts outside the four corners of the pleading, you need a Section 2-619 motion—not a 2-615.

Your opponent's procedural sloppiness just bought your client another day in court. Use it.

The MSA Problem: Contradictory Language Creates Exposure

Here's where the Ito case becomes a cautionary tale for every family lawyer drafting settlement agreements. The MSA contained contradictory language regarding imputed income. Was the $60,000 figure a fixed bargained term—essentially a contractual floor that would bar future modification claims? Or was it an evidentiary imputation, subject to reconsideration if circumstances changed?

The agreement didn't answer that question clearly. And that ambiguity created the opening Nina needed to survive dismissal.

If you're representing the higher-earning spouse, you want ironclad language establishing that imputed income figures represent negotiated terms, not temporary placeholders. If you're representing the lower-earning spouse, you want explicit preservation of modification rights tied to documented changes in earning capacity, health status, or employment circumstances.

Draft like your client's financial future depends on every clause. Because it does.

Strategic Implications for Modification Petitions

If you're filing a motion to modify child support based on changed circumstances, Ito reinforces what you already know: specificity wins. Nina's petition survived because she alleged concrete facts—unemployment, terminated disability benefits, reduced income. Vague claims of "financial hardship" won't cut it.

Plead with precision:


Specific dates of employment termination or benefit cessation
Documentation of applications for disability benefits and their outcomes
Current income figures with supporting evidence
Medical records establishing inability to work, if applicable
Evidence of job search efforts, if relevant to voluntary underemployment defenses


The more granular your factual allegations, the harder it becomes for opposing counsel to argue that no set of facts could support relief. You're building a fortress at the pleading stage that forces them into discovery—where you control the battlefield.

The Tech Angle: Digital Evidence in Modification Disputes

Here's where my cyber practice intersects with family law in ways most attorneys miss. When a party claims they can't work, their digital footprint often tells a different story. Social media posts, fitness app data, location histories, and electronic communications can contradict sworn allegations of disability or unemployment.

If you're defending against a modification petition, subpoena the metadata. Request production of device usage logs, app activity, and cloud-synced health data. A petitioner claiming total disability while their Fitbit shows 15,000 daily steps has a credibility problem that no pleading can survive.

Conversely, if you're filing the petition, counsel your client on digital hygiene before you file. Every Instagram story, every LinkedIn update, every Venmo transaction is potential impeachment evidence. The opposition is already looking. Make sure there's nothing to find.

The Dismissal Defense: Choosing the Right Motion

If you're on the receiving end of a modification petition you believe lacks merit, Ito demands you select your procedural weapon carefully.

Section 2-615 attacks the legal sufficiency of the pleading itself. Use it when the petition fails to allege facts that, even if true, would constitute a substantial change in circumstances under Illinois law. This is a narrow lane—you're arguing the pleading is facially deficient, not that the facts are wrong.

Section 2-619 allows you to introduce affirmative matter outside the pleadings—contracts, prior orders, adjudicated facts—that defeat the claim. If your defense depends on the MSA's language, documentary evidence of the petitioner's actual income, or prior court findings, this is your vehicle.

Misidentifying the appropriate motion wastes judicial resources, delays resolution, and—as Teruaki Ito discovered—hands your opponent an appellate victory they can use to reframe the narrative.

What Trial Courts Must Remember

The Third District's reversal carries an implicit rebuke: trial courts cannot use 2-615 motions to resolve disputed facts or weigh evidence. The pleading stage is not the merits stage. If the allegations, accepted as true, could support relief, the motion must be denied.

For practitioners, this means your opposition's early dismissal strategy has built-in vulnerabilities. If they're asking the court to consider anything beyond the four corners of your petition, they've overreached. Object on the record. Preserve the issue. Make them explain why they didn't file a 2-619.

The Steele Directive: Precision Drafting, Aggressive Positioning

Every MSA you draft is a litigation document waiting to be tested. Every modification petition you file is a narrative that must survive hostile scrutiny. Every dismissal motion you oppose is an opportunity to expose your opponent's procedural overreach.

Ito isn't groundbreaking law—it's a restatement of fundamental pleading standards. But it's a reminder that fundamentals win cases. Your opponent cut corners. The appellate court noticed. Now Nina Ito gets her evidentiary hearing, and Teruaki Ito's counsel has to explain to their client why the "quick dismissal" strategy just extended litigation by another year.

Don't be that attorney.

Draft your agreements with modification scenarios in mind. Plead your petitions with evidentiary specificity. Choose your procedural motions based on what you can actually prove at that stage of litigation.

And when your opposition makes the wrong call, make them pay for it.



If you're facing a child support modification dispute—whether you're seeking an increase, defending against one, or trying to enforce an MSA that your opponent claims is ambiguous—you need counsel who understands both the procedural chess and the substantive stakes.

Book a consultation now. Your opposition is already making mistakes. Let's make sure you capitalize on every one of them.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

Written by Jonathan D. Steele

Chicago divorce attorney with cybersecurity certifications (Security+, CEH, ISC2). Illinois Super Lawyers Rising Star 2016-2025.

Free Consultation

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.