In re Marriage of Pace, 2025 IL App (2d) 240392-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Pace, 2025 IL App (2d) 240392-U - The Illinois Second District Court of Appeals in In re Marriage of Pace vacated a child support modification order, ruling that summary procedures under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act apply only to temporary support, not contested permanent support modifications, which require full evidentiary hearings. The court found the trial court abused its discretion by imputing income and issuing findings without taking evidence or having complete financial discovery, such as W-2s and 1099s, in the record.

The opposing counsel who thinks they can shortcut a permanent support modification just got a brutal reality check from the Second District. In re Marriage of Pace isn't just another procedural footnote—it's a roadmap for how to dismantle sloppy litigation and expose attorneys who treat contested financial matters like a drive-through window.

If you're representing a high-net-worth client in a support dispute, this case hands you the ammunition to demand what your client deserves: a full evidentiary hearing, complete discovery, and a court that actually follows the rules.

What Happened in Pace—And Why It Matters

The trial court in Pace attempted to resolve a contested petition to modify permanent child support through what it called a "summary hearing." The court imputed income to Catherine, fixed Craig's income, and issued findings—all without taking evidence. Discovery was incomplete. No W-2s. No 1099s from the relevant tax year. No evidentiary foundation for the numbers the court used.

The Second District vacated the modification order and the related reimbursement award, making clear that summary procedures under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act apply to temporary support only. When you're modifying permanent support and material facts are contested, you don't get to skip the hearing.

The appellate court relied on established precedent including In re Marriage of Burbridge and Staszak: where actual income, imputed income, or other material facts remain in dispute, disposing of the matter without evidence is an abuse of discretion. Period.

The Strategic Leverage This Creates

Here's where sophisticated practitioners separate themselves from the crowd. Pace gives you three distinct weapons:

1. Demand Complete Discovery Before Any Hearing

The Pace court noted the absence of 2023 W-2s and 1099s in the record. That gap wasn't just a paperwork problem—it was fatal to the trial court's findings. When your opponent tries to rush a support modification to hearing before producing financial documentation, you now have appellate authority to shut that down.

File your motion to compel. Seek a continuance if production is incomplete. Document every discovery deficiency in the record. When the other side claims they "don't have" documents that any employed adult should possess, that's not just obstruction—it's potential leverage for sanctions and adverse inferences.

2. Object to "Summary" Disposition of Permanent Support

If opposing counsel or the court suggests resolving your contested permanent support modification without live testimony, cite Pace immediately. The IMDMA's summary procedures exist for temporary orders where speed matters and stakes are limited. Permanent modifications affect your client's financial life for years. They deserve—and the law requires—a full evidentiary hearing.

Make your objection on the record. If the court proceeds anyway, you've preserved the issue for appeal.

3. Protect the Appellate Record

The Pace court acknowledged that the appellant bore the burden under Foutch v. O'Bryant to provide a complete record. But here's the critical nuance: an incomplete record didn't doom Catherine's appeal entirely. The transcript and existing record showed the absence of an evidentiary hearing, which was enough to warrant reversal on that issue.

Lesson: even when you can't get everything, document what didn't happen. If there's no evidence taken, make sure the transcript reflects that void.

The Contempt Angle: Procedure Still Matters

The appellate court also addressed the trial court's handling of contempt-related monetary relief. The takeaway reinforces a fundamental principle: before a court can enforce contempt-based financial obligations, procedural protections must be observed. A rule to show cause, proper notice, and an opportunity to present evidence aren't optional formalities.

When your opponent seeks reimbursement or other monetary relief tied to alleged contempt, verify they've followed the required procedure. If they haven't, the award is vulnerable.

The Cyber-Discovery Intersection

High-net-worth support disputes increasingly turn on digital evidence: business income hidden in cryptocurrency wallets, lifestyle evidence from social media, communications revealing undisclosed assets. When your opponent claims their income is lower than reality, subpoena their digital footprint.

Bank statements tell one story. Instagram posts showing luxury travel tell another. Electronic discovery isn't just for commercial litigation anymore—it's essential in family law matters where financial transparency is the entire ballgame.

And when your opponent's cybersecurity negligence results in lost or destroyed financial records? That's not just a technical problem. It's potential spoliation, and Pace reminds us that incomplete financial documentation undermines a court's ability to make supportable findings.

Practical Checklist for Illinois Practitioners


Never agree to "summary" resolution of contested permanent support modifications. Temporary support only.
Complete discovery before the hearing. No W-2s, no 1099s, no tax returns? No hearing. Move to compel or continue.
Make express factual findings mandatory. If the court imputes income, demand findings on the record explaining the basis.
Preserve everything for appeal. Order transcripts. File timely post-trial motions. Document what evidence was and wasn't presented.
Verify contempt procedure. Rule to show cause, proper notice, evidentiary hearing. No shortcuts.


The Bottom Line

The Second District just reminded every trial court in Illinois that procedural shortcuts in permanent support modifications won't survive appellate review. For practitioners representing clients in contested financial matters, this is your mandate to demand full process—and your blueprint for reversal when opposing counsel gets lazy.

Your client's financial future isn't a summary matter. Treat it accordingly, and hold the court and opposing counsel to the same standard.

If you're facing a support modification dispute and need counsel who understands both the procedural requirements and the strategic leverage they create, schedule a consultation now. The other side is already making mistakes. Let's make sure they pay for them.

Full Opinion (PDF): Download the full opinion

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.

Free Case Assessment

For more insights, read our Divorce Decoded blog.