In re Marriage of Dahm‑Schell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230529‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dahm‑Schell, 2024 IL App (5th) 230529‑U.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Sandra D. Dahm‑Schell. Respondent‑Appellee: Mark R. Schell.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether mandatory required distributions/withdrawals from an inherited IRA constitute “income” for calculating child support and maintenance under 750 ILCS 5/504(b‑3) and 5/505(a)(3).
- Scope and timing of recalculation on remand after the Illinois Supreme Court held such distributions are includable.
- Whether appellant preserved/properly briefed challenges to awards for interest on a credit‑card debt, medical expenses, and related attorney‑fee/affidavit issues.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part.
- It reversed and remanded the portion of the April 18, 2023 order concerning recalculation of child support and maintenance, directing the trial court to recalculate beginning October 2016 (to conform with the Supreme Court mandate).
- It affirmed the trial court’s rulings on interest for the credit‑card debt and the award of medical expenses because the appellant failed to properly articulate and preserve those arguments on appeal.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- This decision follows the court’s earlier certified‑question opinion (In re Marriage of Dahm‑Schell, 2020 IL App (5th) 200099) and the Illinois Supreme Court’s affirmance (2021 IL 126802) that mandatory distributions from an inherited IRA must be included as income for support calculations. The Supreme Court remanded for recalculation “in accordance with this opinion.”
- On remand the appellate panel concluded the trial court had not applied the Supreme Court mandate correctly with respect to the applicable start date for recalculation; the proper recalculation period should begin in October 2016 (date of the dissolution judgment).
- The court declined to disturb the trial court’s rulings on interest and medical expense issues where appellant’s briefing and record failed to adequately develop legal arguments or preserve necessary affidavits (procedural waiver and forfeiture).

5) Practice implications (brief)
- Mandatory distributions from inherited IRAs are income for child support/maintenance—treat them as such in pleadings, calculations, and discovery.
- On remand after appellate/supreme reversal, ensure recalculations adopt the precise temporal scope mandated by the higher court.
- Preserve issues: timely file required affidavits (e.g., for attorney fees), include complete evidentiary support, and present clear appellate arguments. Inadequate briefing or failure to preserve facts will likely foreclose appellate relief.
- When funds are characterized nonmarital (inheritance), remember characterization does not necessarily immunize required distributions from inclusion as income for support purposes.