In re Marriage of Ito

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Ito, 2025 IL App (3d) 240641-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. Oct. 23, 2025) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Nina Ito. Respondent‑Appellee: Teruaki Ito.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly granted a section 2‑615 (735 ILCS 5/2‑615) motion to dismiss petitioner’s motion to increase child support.
- Whether allegations that the payee’s income is now substantially lower (and that she is unable to work) state a prima facie basis for modification where the marital settlement agreement (MSA) imputed income to the payee at dissolution.

3. Holding / outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court erred in granting the 2‑615 dismissal; petitioner’s motion for increased child support must be reinstated and litigated on the merits.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- A 2‑615 motion tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings; courts must accept well‑pled facts and reasonable inferences as true and not decide the merits (Patrick Eng’g; Jane Doe‑3). The trial court improperly considered extraneous facts and the substantive merits when ruling.
- Although the MSA contained contradictory language and imputed payee income ($60,000), Nina’s motion alleged she is unemployed, no longer receiving disability, and now receives materially less income — facts that, if proven, could constitute a substantial change in financial condition warranting modification (In re Marriage of Pettifer).
- A 2‑615 dismissal is appropriate only if no set of facts consistent with the pleadings would entitle the movant to relief (Khan; Nyhammer). Given the pleaded allegations, dismissal was premature.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers
- Draft MSAs carefully: clearly state whether imputed income is a fixed bargained term (bar to modification) or an evidentiary imputation subject to later modification; resolve inconsistencies within the agreement to avoid post‑judgment challenges.
- When seeking modification based on disability/unemployment, plead specific factual allegations (dates, benefits applied for/denied, current income, medical treatment) and preserve medical/economic proof for an evidentiary hearing.
- Defendants seeking early dismissal should choose the correct procedural vehicle: use a 2‑619 motion (affirmative defenses, matters outside the pleadings) rather than a 2‑615 if relying on documentary or adjudicative facts (e.g., clear contractual bar).
- Trial courts must limit 2‑615 rulings to pleading sufficiency and avoid resolving disputed facts on the pleadings.