In re Marriage of Patel

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Patel, 2025 IL App (3d) 240453 (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Dec. 3, 2025). Petitioner-Appellant: Deepak V. Patel. Respondent-Appellee: Binita Patel.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether a marital settlement agreement (MSA) clause capping child‑supportable income at $500,000 and declaring that cap nonmodifiable is enforceable;
2) Whether the trial court properly modified child support given changed circumstances and whether it abused its discretion in setting the dollar amount; and
3) Whether the original child‑support order was voidable for lack of statutory written findings when deviating from guideline support.

- Holding / outcome
The Appellate Court affirmed. The court held the nonmodifiable cap on child‑supportable income in the MSA was voidable (provisions concerning child support cannot be made nonmodifiable), the original order lacked the required written deviation findings under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.4), and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying child support. The trial court’s modified support award required Deepak to pay $3,750/month.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The court emphasized that parties cannot contractually render child support terms nonmodifiable; section 502(f) controls modifiability and the Act limits private waivers of support modification. The original support order also failed to include statutorily required written findings explaining any deviation from the Illinois child‑support guidelines (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.4)), rendering the order voidable. The trial court independently found a substantial change in circumstances permitting modification — principally a dramatic increase in Deepak’s earnings since dissolution (the court noted multi‑year averages in the high six figures and other evidence estimating even higher current compensation) and an increase in Binita’s income — and thus recalculated support. Although the guideline basic obligation produced a lower figure (the court noted a highest guideline amount of $2,026), the court permissibly deviated upward based on the parties’ incomes and other evidence, explaining its reasons on the record.

- Practice implications for family attorneys
- You cannot contractually immunize child‑support provisions from modification; draft MSAs with this limitation in mind and avoid language that attempts to make support “non‑modifiable.”
- If seeking or agreeing to a deviation from guideline support, obtain explicit, contemporaneous written findings under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.4) to preserve enforceability on appeal.
- When litigating modifications for high‑income payors, compile multi‑year income documentation (W‑2s, bonuses, equity compensation, pay stubs) and argue both guideline calculations and equitable reasons for deviation.
- Include clear true‑up and reporting mechanisms in MSAs if parties expect variable compensation (bonuses, stock) to reduce later disputes.