In re Marriage of Spangler, 2025 IL App (2d) 240303

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Spangler, 2025 IL App (2d) 240303 - The article analyzes In re Marriage of Spangler (July 2025), where an Illinois appellate court affirmed $78,885.64 in child support arrears against a spouse who failed to provide required annual income documentation, rejecting his defense that informal payment arrangements and the other party's acceptance of tax exemptions constituted an enforceable oral modification. A key legal point established is that parties cannot effectuate out-of-court modifications of child support obligations without court approval, as courts must independently protect children's interests—meaning private deals between parents are unenforceable regardless of how long they've been followed.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet. If you're dealing with a high-income spouse who's been "forgetting" to disclose bonuses, stock vesting schedules, or that second W-2 from the consulting gig, In re Marriage of Spangler just handed you the playbook for extracting every dollar owed.

This July 2025 decision from the Second District Appellate Court isn't just another child support case. It's a masterclass in what happens when one party thinks they can play fast and loose with disclosure obligations—and a roadmap for how to systematically dismantle that strategy.

The Setup: When "Informal Arrangements" Become Six-Figure Problems

Nathan DeFauw thought he had it figured out. His joint parenting agreement required annual income documentation and recalculated child support based on increased earnings. Simple enough. Except Nathan decided that providing occasional informal payment increases and letting his ex-wife claim tax exemptions was somehow equivalent to compliance.

It wasn't.

The trial court found Nathan owed $78,885.64 in arrears spanning nearly a decade. The appellate court affirmed. Civil contempt. Attorney fees exceeding $33,000 awarded to the other side. A purge amount set with jail time on the table if he didn't comply.

This is what happens when you bring a handshake to a contract fight.

The Legal Architecture: Why Your JPA Language Is Either a Weapon or a Liability

The court's analysis hinged on contract interpretation principles that every family law practitioner should have tattooed on their forearm. Under the Quake Construction line of authority, when contract language isn't reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, interpretation relies on the text alone.

Nathan's JPA was unambiguous: provide paystubs and W-2s annually, recalculate support when income increases, pay the difference. The court didn't need to look at what the parties "intended" or how they "behaved" because the words were clear.

Strategic takeaway: If you're drafting, your JPA provisions need operative language that leaves no interpretive wiggle room—specific deadlines, calculation mechanisms, and consequences for non-disclosure. If you're enforcing, ambiguity is your enemy. Clarity is your leverage.

The Oral Modification Trap: Why Private Deals Are Worthless

Here's where Nathan's defense collapsed entirely. He argued that the parties' course of conduct—those informal payment bumps, the tax exemption arrangements—constituted an enforceable oral modification of the JPA.

The court cited Blisset and shut this down cold: parties cannot effectuate an out-of-court modification that alters child support obligations without court approval. Why? Because the court must protect the children's interests, and private deals between parents don't satisfy that requirement.

This isn't a technicality. It's a fundamental principle that separates enforceable agreements from wishful thinking.

Translation for the high-net-worth divorce context: Your client's ex can't claim that years of accepting reduced payments somehow waived the right to enforce the original obligation. Every dollar owed under the original order remains owed until a court says otherwise.

Equitable Estoppel: The Defense That Almost Never Works

Nathan also tried equitable estoppel—arguing that Britt's acceptance of tax exemptions and reduced payments should bar her from claiming arrears. The trial court found his explanations "self-serving and insufficient."

Equitable estoppel requires reasonable reliance on the other party's conduct. Accepting what's offered while reserving the right to enforce what's owed isn't the kind of conduct that creates estoppel. It's pragmatism.

Practical application: If you're representing the payee spouse, document everything but don't let temporary acceptance of partial compliance become ammunition for the other side. If you're representing the payor, understand that your client's failure to seek formal modification is a ticking time bomb.

The Discovery Angle: Where Cyber Meets Family Law

Here's where my practice areas intersect in ways that keep opposing counsel awake at night.

Nathan's failure to provide annual income documentation wasn't just a breach of contract—it was a discovery failure that compounded over years. In the modern high-net-worth divorce, income isn't just W-2s. It's equity compensation, deferred bonuses, partnership distributions, crypto holdings, and consulting arrangements routed through LLCs.

When a spouse fails to disclose, you don't just file a motion to compel. You subpoena the employer. You forensically examine financial accounts. You cross-reference LinkedIn announcements about promotions with claimed income figures. You look at the metadata on financial documents to see when they were actually created.

Cyber negligence—sloppy digital footprints, inconsistent financial records, social media that contradicts sworn statements—is leverage in discovery. The spouse who posts about the new boat while claiming income hasn't increased is handing you exhibits.

Contempt as a Compliance Tool: The Court's Enforcement Arsenal

The trial court found Nathan in civil contempt and set a $7,500 purge amount with a payment plan and potential short-term incarceration as enforcement mechanisms. The appellate court affirmed.

Civil contempt isn't punishment—it's coercion. The contemnor holds the keys to their own jail cell. Pay what's owed, provide what's required, and the contempt dissolves. Refuse, and the court has broad discretion to escalate.

For practitioners, this means contempt petitions should be filed proactively, not as a last resort. Combined with fee petitions, they create compounding pressure that makes settlement increasingly attractive to the non-compliant party.

The Fee Award: Making Non-Compliance Expensive

Britt received over $33,000 in attorney fees. This wasn't a windfall—it was the natural consequence of Nathan's years of non-disclosure forcing extensive litigation.

Fee-shifting in enforcement actions serves a dual purpose: it compensates the compliant party and it deters future non-compliance. Courts recognize that requiring the payee spouse to absorb litigation costs effectively reduces the support they're entitled to receive.

Strategic implication: When you're enforcing support obligations, document your fees meticulously and request them aggressively. When you're defending, understand that every motion you force the other side to file is potentially another line item on the fee petition.

Drafting Lessons: Building Enforcement Into Your Agreements

The Spangler decision reinforces several drafting principles for joint parenting agreements and marital settlement agreements:


Specify disclosure obligations with precision: Which documents, by what date, delivered how, with what consequences for non-compliance.
Define calculation mechanisms explicitly: If support adjusts based on income changes, specify the formula, the triggering threshold, and the effective date of adjustments.
Address tax treatment separately: Don't let informal arrangements around exemptions or credits blur the support obligation itself.
Include fee-shifting provisions: Make clear that the party who breaches bears the cost of enforcement.
Build in verification mechanisms: Consider requiring annual exchange of tax returns, not just W-2s, to capture all income sources.


For the Payor Spouse: The Modification Imperative

If your client's circumstances have genuinely changed—income decreased, expenses increased, children's needs shifted—the answer is never to stop complying and hope for the best. The answer is to file for modification.

Courts can modify support prospectively when circumstances warrant. What they won't do is retroactively forgive obligations that accrued while your client was ignoring the existing order. Every month of non-compliance is another month of arrears that will eventually come due, with interest and fees attached.

The Bottom Line

In re Marriage of Spangler is a reminder that family law obligations aren't suggestions. Joint parenting agreements are contracts. Disclosure requirements are enforceable. Informal arrangements don't substitute for court approval. And courts have robust tools—contempt, fee-shifting, incarceration—to compel compliance when parties think they're above the process.

For the spouse owed support: enforce early, document everything, and don't let years of non-compliance accumulate before acting. For the spouse paying support: disclose fully, modify formally, and understand that the cost of non-compliance compounds faster than any investment return.

If you're sitting on a disclosure failure, a support arrearage, or a spouse who thinks private deals override court orders, the time to act was yesterday. The second-best time is now.

Book a strategy session. Your opposition is already losing—they just haven't seen the math yet.

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.