In re Marriage of Taylor, 2019 IL App (5th) 170412-U

Summary

Case Summary: In re Marriage of Taylor, 2019 IL App (5th) 170412-U - A father's bid to reduce child support crumbled not because the law opposed him, but because he failed to weaponize digital discovery—ignoring the Etsy analytics, Venmo trails, and platform records that could have exposed his ex-wife's true income. In re Marriage of Taylor demonstrates that in an era where every side hustle leaves a forensic footprint, winning imputation battles requires subpoenaing transaction histories and payment processor data, not merely alleging underemployment.

The opposing counsel is already on the back foot—they just don't know it yet. When your ex-spouse claims they're barely scraping by while conveniently working part-time and running an Etsy shop on the side, the courtroom becomes a stage for strategic demolition. The question isn't whether you can challenge their narrative; it's whether you've built the evidentiary arsenal to make the judge's decision inevitable.

In re Marriage of Taylor offers a masterclass in what happens when a petitioner walks into court with incomplete ammunition. Let's dissect what went wrong—and how you avoid the same fate.

The Battlefield: Taylor v. Taylor

Simon Taylor wanted his child support obligations modified. He'd gone back to school, his paystubs showed variable hours, and he believed his ex-wife Casey was deliberately underemployed. She worked part-time for the county, supplemented income through seasonal Etsy sales and babysitting, and relied on public assistance. On paper, it looked like a textbook imputation case.

The trial court disagreed. The Fifth District affirmed. Simon lost—not because the law was against him, but because his proof was anemic.

The "Substantial Change" Threshold: Your First Hurdle

Illinois doesn't let you relitigate child support because you feel like it. You must demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances since the last order. The appellate court applied the manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard, meaning the trial court's factual findings stand unless they're clearly unreasonable.

Simon showed reduced earnings while enrolled in school. That's a start. But reduced earnings alone don't automatically trigger modification—especially when the reduction is voluntary. Courts scrutinize whether your income drop was strategic or genuine, temporary or permanent.

Strategic takeaway: If you're seeking modification based on reduced income, document everything. Tax returns, W-2s, paystubs with hours history, enrollment verification, projected graduation dates, and post-graduation earning capacity. Show the court a trajectory, not just a snapshot.

The Imputation Question: Where Simon's Case Collapsed

Here's where it gets interesting. Simon argued the court should impute full-time income to Casey because she was voluntarily underemployed. She worked part-time, ran seasonal side businesses, and collected public assistance. Classic imputation scenario, right?

Not so fast.

The trial court found Casey's part-time work was intentional—but for a legitimate reason: avoiding childcare costs. When you're a custodial parent earning modest wages, the math often doesn't favor full-time employment if childcare eats your additional earnings. The court accepted this explanation.

The appellate court affirmed, noting that Simon failed to develop sufficient evidence of Casey's actual earning capacity. He didn't present labor market data, vocational assessments, or proof that comparable full-time positions were available and accessible to her. He relied on the premise that working part-time equals voluntary underemployment. That's not how this works.

Strategic takeaway: To successfully argue imputation, you need more than suspicion. You need:


Evidence of the opposing party's education, skills, and work history
Labor market analysis showing available positions matching their qualifications
Proof that childcare costs wouldn't offset additional income
Documentation of any prior income levels (Casey had previously been imputed income in a Washington decree—Simon should have hammered this harder)


Imputation cases are won in discovery, not at trial. Subpoena employment records. Depose former employers. Obtain vocational expert testimony. Make the court's decision mathematical, not emotional.

The Credibility Trap: Why Explicit Findings Weren't Required

Simon also argued the trial court erred by not making express credibility findings about Casey's testimony. She'd made accounting errors in her financial affidavits—her monthly calculations didn't add up correctly.

The appellate court shrugged. Casey provided underlying documentation that allowed the court to determine her actual income. The math errors didn't require exclusion of her testimony when the raw data was available for independent verification.

More importantly, the court found no requirement for explicit credibility findings when the testimony and financial affidavits provided a sufficient factual basis for the decision. Translation: if you want the appellate court to care about credibility issues, you need to preserve specific contradictions in the record and request findings at trial.

Strategic takeaway: When your opponent's testimony contains inconsistencies, don't assume the judge will connect the dots. Create a clear record:


Highlight specific contradictions during cross-examination
Request that the court make explicit credibility findings
Submit proposed findings of fact that address testimonial reliability
Object contemporaneously to misleading or inconsistent statements


Appellate courts defer to trial courts on credibility. If you don't build the record below, you've already lost the appeal.

The Post-Appeal Hail Mary: "New Evidence" Denied

Simon attempted one final maneuver: seeking remand based on "new and material" evidence discovered after the appeal was filed. The appellate court denied this request without extended analysis.

This is a reminder that appellate courts review the record as it existed at trial. Evidence you discover later—no matter how compelling—generally won't save a weak case. The time to investigate is before you file, not after you lose.

The Tech-Law Intersection: Discovery in the Digital Age

Casey supplemented her income through Etsy sales and babysitting. These are exactly the types of income streams that leave digital footprints—payment processor records, platform analytics, social media marketing, customer reviews, and bank deposits that don't match reported income.

In high-net-worth cases, we routinely subpoena:


PayPal, Venmo, and Zelle transaction histories
E-commerce platform seller dashboards and payout records
Social media accounts showing business activity or lifestyle inconsistent with claimed income
Cloud storage and email accounts (with appropriate court orders) for business communications


If your opposing party claims they're barely surviving while their Instagram shows vacation photos and their Etsy shop has five-star reviews stacking up, that's impeachment gold. But you have to request it. You have to subpoena it. You have to present it.

Cyber negligence—failing to secure or disclose digital financial records—is leverage in discovery. When someone "forgets" to mention their side business income, their digital footprint becomes your cross-examination outline.

The Rule 23 Reality Check

One critical caveat: In re Marriage of Taylor is a Rule 23 unpublished decision. It's not binding precedent. You cannot cite it as authority in Illinois courts without meeting the narrow exceptions under Supreme Court Rule 23(e).

That said, unpublished decisions reveal how appellate panels think. They show the analytical frameworks courts apply when published opinions don't address your specific fact pattern. Smart practitioners study them for strategic insight, even if they can't cite them directly.

The Modification Playbook: What Simon Should Have Done

Let's rebuild this case the right way:

1. Document your own income change comprehensively. Paystubs showing variable hours aren't enough. Provide tax returns for multiple years showing the trend. Include enrollment documentation, tuition costs, and projected post-graduation income. Show the court you're investing in future earning capacity, not hiding from current obligations.

2. Investigate the opposing party's earning capacity before filing. Subpoena employment records. Obtain a vocational evaluation. Research the local job market for positions matching their qualifications. Calculate whether childcare costs actually offset potential earnings—or whether that's a convenient excuse.

3. Trace all income streams. Self-employment income is notoriously underreported. Subpoena bank records, payment processor accounts, and platform analytics. Compare reported income to actual deposits. Discrepancies become impeachment.

4. Attack credibility with precision. When financial affidavits contain errors, don't just mention it—demonstrate the pattern. Create exhibits showing the discrepancies. Request specific credibility findings. Make the record bulletproof for appeal.

5. Preserve everything. Object contemporaneously. Request rulings on the record. Submit proposed findings. Appellate courts can only review what's in the transcript.

The Power Dynamic

Modification cases are asymmetric warfare. The party seeking modification bears the burden. The party defending the status quo just has to poke holes. If you're petitioning for modification, you need overwhelming evidence—not a close call.

Simon Taylor walked into court hoping the judge would see what he saw. Hope is not a litigation strategy. Evidence is. Documentation is. Strategic discovery is.

Your ex-spouse's financial narrative is only as strong as your willingness to dismantle it. Every Etsy sale has a transaction record. Every babysitting gig has a Venmo receipt. Every lifestyle post on social media tells a story that might contradict sworn testimony.

The question is whether you're willing to do the work to find it.



When your financial future depends on exposing the truth, you need counsel who treats discovery like a forensic investigation and cross-examination like a surgical procedure.

Book a strategy session now. Your opposition is already building their defense. Make sure you're building something stronger.

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.