In re Marriage of Spangler

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Spangler, 2025 IL App (2d) 240303 (July 31, 2025). Petitioner-Appellee: Britt Spangler (f/k/a DeFauw). Respondent-Appellant: Nathan DeFauw. Appeal from De Kalb County Circuit Court (No. 09-D-320).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the parties’ joint parenting agreement (JPA) was ambiguous as to Nathan’s obligation to provide annual income documentation and to pay additional child support based on increased income.
2) Whether the parties orally modified the JPA (and thus reduced Nathan’s support obligations) or whether equitable estoppel barred enforcement of arrears.
3) Whether the trial court properly found Nathan in civil contempt and calculated arrears, and whether attorney fees should be awarded.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The JPA was unambiguous; Nathan owed a child support arrearage of $78,885.64 (Jan. 2015–2023). The trial court modified ongoing support to $773.12/month effective April 2023, found Nathan in civil contempt, set a $7,500 purge amount and payment-plan/jail enforcement parameters, and affirmed an award of attorney fees to Britt totaling $33,946.32.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court held the JPA’s child-support provisions were clear: Nathan was obligated to provide paystubs/W-2s annually and to recalculate and pay additional child support when his income increased. Because the contract language was not reasonably susceptible to more than one meaning, interpretation relied on the contract’s text (Quake Construction line of authority). The court rejected Nathan’s claim that the parties’ course of conduct (periodic informal payment increases and tax-exemption use) created an enforceable oral modification: under Blisset, parties may not effectuate an out-of-court modification that alters child-support obligations without court approval because the court must protect children’s interests. The trial court also found Nathan’s explanations self-serving and insufficient to establish equitable estoppel or a binding oral change. Civil contempt was appropriate for willful nonpayment and to coerce compliance; the court’s calculations and sanctioning powers (purge amount, payment plan, possible short-term incarceration) were sustained.

- Practice implications
- Draft JPA provisions with clear, operative language about income disclosures, calculation mechanisms, timing, and tax-exemption conditions to avoid interpretive disputes.
- Seek court approval for any modification that affects support—oral or private agreements altering child support are generally unenforceable.
- Preserve and request financial documentation promptly; a payor’s failure to disclose can produce large arrears plus attorney fees and contempt sanctions.
- Accepting tax exemptions or receiving reduced payments does not necessarily estop enforcement of unpaid support.
- Use contempt and fee petitions proactively where support obligations are ignored; courts can set purge amounts, payment plans, and award counsel fees.