In re Marriage of Kinsella

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Kinsella, 2025 IL App (3d) 240144-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Oct. 30, 2025) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Donielle Kinsella. Respondent-Appellant: Michael Kinsella.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred in denying respondent’s motion to modify child support (750 ILCS 5/510).
2) Whether the trial court properly granted petitioner’s request to “set” children’s expenses after the dissolution judgment omitted an expense allocation (relationship between section 505 set-expenses relief and section 510 modification).
3) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court: (1) affirmed the denial of Michael’s motion to modify child support; (2) held the trial court abused its discretion in granting Donielle’s request to set the children’s expenses and vacated that portion of the order; and (3) affirmed the trial court’s award of attorney fees to Michael.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification: The trial court’s factual determination that there was no substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying child support was supported by the record. The court credited documentary evidence (tax returns, accountant testimony) and discredited respondent’s testimony on income; the appellate court deferred to those credibility findings and the trial court’s exercise of discretion.
- Expenses: Although the trial court stated it had intended to allocate children’s future expenses in the dissolution judgment, it omitted that provision and later treated petitioner’s post-judgment request as a section 505 “set expenses” matter rather than a section 510 modification. The appellate court concluded the trial court abused its discretion in the way it granted relief to set expenses (and therefore vacated that portion), signaling that the statutory/practical distinction between setting expenses and modifying a final judgment matters and cannot be skirted by recharacterization.
- Fees: The fee award was within the trial court’s equitable discretion and was affirmed.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Preserve clarity in final judgments: explicitly allocate child-related expenses at entry to avoid later disputes over proper post-judgment procedure.
- Choose the correct statutory vehicle: relief to alter a final judgment typically requires section 510 modification (showing substantial change); ad hoc “set expense” requests may be vulnerable if they functionally modify the decree.
- Prove changes to income with documentary support (tax returns, P&L, ledgers); credibility and complete financial disclosure are critical.
- Fee awards remain discretionary—document litigation conduct and reasonableness.
- Note: decision is a Rule 23 order (nonprecedential except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1)).