In re Marriage of Svec

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Svec, 2024 IL App (2d) 220461‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Aug. 27, 2024) (Rule 23(b) order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Keri L. Svec (n/k/a Jonas). Respondent‑Appellant: Donald J. Svec.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a trial court may modify a marital settlement agreement (MSA) by reallocating child dependency exemptions after children allocated to one parent age out.
2) Whether the aging-out of children (foreseeable at divorce) constitutes a “substantial change in circumstances” sufficient to justify modifying an MSA.

- Holding / outcome
The Second District reversed. The appellate court held petitioner failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances that would justify reallocation of the remaining minor children’s tax exemptions; the trial court erred in modifying the MSA’s tax‑exemption allocation.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The MSA expressly allocated two older children to petitioner and two younger to respondent for tax purposes. The court emphasized that the parties knowingly negotiated and accepted those allocations. The fact that the two children allocated to petitioner later reached age 18 and thus ceased to qualify as dependents was contemplated by the original agreement and therefore did not constitute the substantial, unforeseen change required to modify an MSA. The trial court had relied on a recent statute amendment and concluded foreseeability could not bar modification; the appellate court rejected that as a basis to alter the bargained allocation without a substantial change. Because petitioner presented no other changed facts (and admitted at the dissolution hearing she understood the MSA), the reallocation order was unsupported.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- MSAs: expressly address future contingencies (aging‑out, emancipation, tax credits) and include clear fallback provisions (e.g., automatic reallocation rules, tie to support payments, temporary releases like IRS Form 8332, or survivor/contingent clauses).
- Modifications: counsel seeking reallocation must prove a substantial, material, and unforeseen change — mere expiry of a contemplated benefit is unlikely to suffice.
- Litigation strategy: preserve evidence on bargaining, income, and intent at dissolution; if tax allocations are disputed later, link requests for reallocation to other demonstrable changes (income, custody, support) and present specific financial proof of harm.
- Drafting tip: include explicit tax‑allocation sunset mechanics to avoid later litigation over foreseeably expiring benefits.