In re Marriage of Garcia

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Garcia, No. 1-23-0957 (consol. with 1-23-1288), 2024 IL App (1st) 230957-U (Aug. 16, 2024) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellant: Bernardo Garcia. Respondent-Appellee: Maria M. Garcia n/k/a Maria Morales.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred in ordering each parent to pay half of the older child’s unmet private-college expenses under a marital settlement agreement (MSA) incorporated in the dissolution judgment.
2) Whether the MSA or 750 ILCS 5/513 (statutory factors for post‑secondary support) controls.
3) Whether the trial court’s finding that both parents could each afford $12,000 for the daughter’s freshman year was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
4) Whether the parent who allegedly was not consulted about choice of a private university could avoid or limit contribution.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. It held that Garcia failed to show the trial court’s order (each parent to contribute $12,000 toward unmet 2022–23 college expenses) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

- Significant legal reasoning
- Contractual primacy: The court emphasized that the parties’ MSA (incorporated into the divorce decree) explicitly provided that the parties “shall contribute” to college costs and set criteria for contributions (financial ability, child’s resources, joint decisionmaking). Because this was an agreement between parties, contract-law principles apply, not a de novo statutory determination under section 513.
- Distinguishing precedent: Cases cited by Garcia (e.g., Sussen, Petersen) involved either reserve-of-issue judgments or statutory determinations under section 513 and were therefore inapposite to an MSA that expressly obligated parental contribution.
- Deference to trial-court factfinding: Interpretation of the MSA is reviewed de novo, but underlying factual findings (creditability, income/expense determinations) are upheld unless against manifest weight. The trial court found Garcia’s testimony not credible and reasonably concluded both parents could each pay $12,000. That credibility determination and factual conclusion were not overturned.
- Joint-decision clause: Although the MSA required joint college decisions, the court still enforced the contribution obligation in light of its interpretation of the agreement and the parties’ financial circumstances.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Draft MSAs with clear, detailed language on: who decides college choice, procedures for dispute resolution, caps/percentages of contribution, treatment of loans and scholarships, and consequences for unilateral college selection.
- Preserve and produce a full hearing record (transcript) and contemporaneous proof of consultations about college selection.
- Present thorough, documentary financial evidence at trial; anticipate credibility attacks (luxury expenses, timing of purchases).
- If seeking to avoid contribution, litigate under contract principles (challenge interpretation) and present strong evidence showing inability to pay.
- Consider arbitration or specified tie‑breaker mechanisms for college selection and cost allocation to avoid costly litigation.