Summary
Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pace - In In re Marriage of Pace, the Illinois Appellate Court held that the trial court violated due process and abused its discretion by resolving a contested child‑support modification and awarding contempt‑style financial relief without issuing a rule to show cause or holding an evidentiary hearing—reversing and vacating the modified support order and $1,593.41 award and remanding for the hearing, grounded on notice‑and‑hearing principles (Mullane; Mathews) and the statutory entitlement to an evidentiary hearing when material facts are disputed. Practitioners should immediately preserve and authenticate financial evidence (forensic‑grade PDFs, SHA‑256 hashes), move within 7–14 days to stay enforcement and to vacate any contempt finding lacking a rule to show cause, plead statutory “substantial change” calculations, and insist on an evidentiary hearing whenever disputed facts exist—while courts must calendar hearings and issue formal rules to show cause before imposing coercive sanctions.
When a Judge Skips the Hearing: The Real‑World Fallout of In re Marriage of Pace
Picture a mother juggling two jobs, tax returns, and a toddler’s medicine schedule. She files a petition to modify child support after her ex’s income drops. Instead of a hearing, the judge issues a sanction finding her in contempt and awards the ex $1,593.41 for child‑related expenses — without a rule to show cause and without taking testimony. That is the posture the Illinois Appellate Court reversed in In re Marriage of Craig C. Pace and Catherine F. Pace, 2025 IL App (2d) 240392‑U (Order filed Aug. 14, 2025) (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist.; filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(b)).
Key Facts
- Parties: Craig C. Pace and Catherine F. Pace.
- Lower court actions: A Nov. 14, 2019 order found Craig in contempt; a Feb. 16, 2024 order awarded Craig $1,593.41 on Count II of his Nov. 13, 2019 petition for rule to show cause.
- Appellant: Catherine F. Pace (pro se).
- Appellate holding: The trial court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on a petition to modify child support, and violated due process by finding a party in violation of the dissolution judgment without issuing a rule to show cause or holding a hearing. The modified child support judgment was vacated; postjudgment interest was moot. Judgment vacated and remanded. (2025 IL App (2d) 240392‑U)
Main Legal Question
Did the trial court violate due process and abuse its discretion by (1) treating motions and petitions that implicated modification or enforcement of support as ripe for adjudication without an evidentiary hearing and (2) entering contempt‑style relief without issuing a rule to show cause?
Court’s Reasoning (Why the Appellate Court Reversed)
Presiding Justice Kennedy framed the decision around two bedrock principles: (A) a party seeking modification or enforcement of support is entitled to an evidentiary hearing when disputed facts are presented, and (B) a contempt determination requires procedural safeguards — specifically notice in the form of a rule to show cause and an opportunity to be heard. The court relied on procedural fairness analogues found in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), and the fundamental notice-and‑hearing principles of Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), to explain why summary adjudication here was impermissible.
The practical result: the appellate court vacated the lower court’s modified child support order and the related award of $1,593.41, and remanded for the trial court to hold the evidentiary hearing the statute of procedure and due process required.
What This Means for Future Disputes
Although In re Marriage of Pace is filed under Ill. S. Ct. R. 23(b) (non‑precedential), the decision is a sharp warning: trial courts in Illinois should not shortcut contested child support and contempt matters. Expect trial judges to (or at least be on notice that appellate courts expect them to) hold hearings when parties raise disputed fact issues, and to issue formal rules to show cause before finding contempt.
Practical, Step‑by‑Step Guidance for Practitioners
For Attorneys Representing Clients
- Preserve the record immediately. If a client receives a contempt finding or an unexpected order, file a motion to stay enforcement and request an evidentiary hearing within 7–14 days. Include a concise factual affidavit showing disputed material facts (income, tuition, payments) and attach relevant documents.
- Demand a rule to show cause. When opposing a contempt finding, move to vacate unless the court issued a formal rule to show cause. Cite Pace: trial courts must provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before contempt findings that affect liberty or finances.
- Frame the relief as fact‑driven. For modification petitions, specify the statutory basis (e.g., substantial change in income or circumstances) and list precise calculations. Demand an evidentiary hearing when factual disputes exist — don’t let the court treat contested affidavits as undisputed.
- Protect digital evidence. Preserve bank records, payroll stubs, and emails with metadata intact. Create forensic‑grade PDFs (with Bates numbers) and generate SHA‑256 hashes to document authenticity.
- If pro se opposing counsel is involved, educate the court. Courts sometimes shortcut hearings against pro se litigants; file short, pointed memoranda explaining why Pace applies and attach case citation: In re Marriage of Pace, 2025 IL App (2d) 240392‑U.
For Individuals (Clients)
- Keep chronological records of payments and communications (screenshots with timestamps). If you get an order without a hearing, contact counsel promptly — appellate relief often depends on a timely preserved record.
- Understand your rights: courts cannot fine you or hold you in contempt without notice and an opportunity to present your side.
- Secure your documents: use secure client portals or encrypted storage (e.g., password‑protected PDFs; 256‑bit encryption). If asked to produce financials, provide authenticated copies, and retain originals.
For Firms and Court Managers
- Train judges and staff on the Pace holding: when facts are in dispute on child support modification or alleged violations, calendaring an evidentiary hearing is often required.
- Develop intake checklists that flag potential contempt issues and prompt a rule to show cause if relief sought would deprive someone of property or rights.
- Invest in secure evidence‑management tools. Forensic preservation can cost $1,000–$3,500 for basic device imaging; firms should budget for this in high‑stakes child support disputes.
Human Element: Why This Matters
Beyond procedure, Pace is about dignity. Clients facing contempt or sudden financial judgments often cannot afford protracted appeals. Denying a hearing compounds stress and harms children who depend on predictable support. Attorneys must translate legal technicalities into practical protections — insist on hearings, protect digital proof, and counsel clients through the emotional tug of enforcement proceedings.
Short List of Concrete Actions to Implement Now
- Create a litigation checklist referencing In re Marriage of Pace for any post‑dissolution enforcement or modification matter.
- Require evidentiary hearing language in all stipulated orders that could be reopened — “subject to evidentiary hearing if disputed facts arise.”
- Adopt a digital‑forensics policy: hash and time‑stamp electronic evidence within 48 hours of retention.
- When a court issues an order without hearing, file an emergency motion to vacate and preserve appellate rights within statutory timeframes.
Call to action: If your court is considering a contempt or modification ruling without a hearing, contact experienced family counsel immediately. If you’re a judge or court administrator, revise local procedures to reflect the expectations in In re Marriage of Pace. The procedural shortcuts that ripple into families’ lives will not withstand appellate scrutiny — and neither should your practice.
Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion
For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.