In re Marriage of Pace

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Pace, 2025 IL App (2d) 240392-U (2d Dist. Aug. 14, 2025, modified Aug. 26, 2025). Petitioner-Appellee: Craig C. Pace. Respondent-Appellant: Catherine F. Pace.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion and violated due process by resolving a petition to modify permanent child support without an evidentiary hearing (the court conducted a “summary hearing”).
2) Whether the trial court erred in awarding reimbursement for child‑related expenses when it denied the underlying rule to show cause.
3) Whether the court erred in handling a motion to reconsider a contempt finding and the effect of incomplete appellate record/discovery (e.g., missing 2023 W‑2s/1099s).

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court: affirmed the trial court’s denial of Catherine’s motion to reconsider the 2019 contempt order; vacated the trial court’s modification of child support and vacated the award on count II of Craig’s rule to show cause (the reimbursement); and remanded for further proceedings. Arguments regarding denial of reconsideration were largely forfeited by the appellant; issues relating to postjudgment interest were rendered moot by vacation of the support order.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- A full evidentiary hearing is required to modify permanent child support in the absence of agreement; summary procedures permitted by the IMDMA apply to temporary support only. The court relied on In re Marriage of Burbridge and Staszak: where material facts (e.g., actual income, imputed income) are contested, dismissal or disposition without evidence is an abuse of discretion.
- The February 14, 2024 order recited a “summary hearing” and contained factual findings (imputing income to Catherine, fixing Craig’s income) despite no evidentiary record; discovery was incomplete (no 2023 W‑2s/1099s), so findings lacked a factual basis.
- Appellant bore the burden to provide a complete record on appeal (Foutch); while the incomplete record limited review, it did not preclude relief where the transcript/record showed the absence of an evidentiary hearing.
- Procedural protections (rule to show cause, opportunity to present evidence) are necessary before finding or enforcing contempt-related monetary obligations.

- Practice implications for family-law practitioners
- Do not resolve contested permanent-support modifications on a “summary” basis; hold an evidentiary hearing and make express factual findings when imputing income.
- Ensure discovery (pay stubs, W‑2s, 1099s, tax returns) is produced before hearings; seek continuance if not.
- Before seeking contempt-based monetary relief, obtain and preserve a rule to show cause and a hearing record.
- Preserve the appellate record (transcript or agreed statement); timely posttrial motions toll appeal deadlines and preserve issues.