In re Marriage of Kinsella

Case & Citation

In re Marriage of Donielle Kinsella v. Michael Kinsella
2025 IL App (3d) 240144‑U; Order filed October 30, 2025 (Supreme Court Rule 23 — nonprecedential). Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District — Appeal from the 12th Judicial Circuit, Will County (Circuit No. 18‑D‑1016; Appeal No. 3‑24‑0144). Panel: Justice Hettel (delivered judgment); Justices Peterson and Anderson concur.

Holdings

- The circuit court properly denied Michael’s motion to modify child support. - The circuit court abused its discretion in granting Donielle’s request to set expenses to the extent it allocated school expenses (that portion vacated); its allocation of medical expenses was affirmed. - The circuit court’s award of attorney fees to Michael was proper (de minimis award affirmed).

Procedural & Factual Background

- Dissolution judgment entered November 19, 2021 (parties married 2005; two children born 2008 and 2010). The judgment set basic child support at $1,649/month and directed Michael to pay $250/month toward an arrearage beginning December 1, 2021. The judgment was silent as to allocation of future school and medical expenses. - Donielle (initially pro se) sought payment of $4,076.92 in post‑judgment medical/school expenses incurred June–November 2022 and later filed a motion for relief to “set expenses” and to modify support. Michael moved to dismiss and later moved to modify child support (July 18, 2023), claiming his income had substantially declined. An evidentiary hearing occurred Sept. 22 & 25, 2023.

Key Evidence & Trial Court Findings

- Trial evidence included tax returns, a financial affidavit, bank statements, an accountant’s testimony (Nahum Jayesinghe), and an expense spreadsheet prepared by Donielle. Jayesinghe testified the returns fairly reflected income but relied on records Michael supplied; the record showed missing formal business records and some discrepancies (e.g., 2022 gross‑receipts variance). - The trial court found Michael’s testimony “neither compelling nor credible,” credited the tax/financial evidence as showing post‑dissolution income of at least $159,000, and concluded there was no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of child support. The court treated Donielle’s filing as a request to set expenses and ordered a 65%/35% split (Michael/Donielle) for medical and school expenses incurred after she filed for relief; it awarded Michael $162.50 in attorney fees for limited work related to the initial call and motion to dismiss and denied the remainder.

Issues on Appeal

- Whether the trial court erred in denying Michael’s motion to modify child support. - Whether the court properly characterized and adjudicated Donielle’s request to set expenses (whether governed by 505(a) or by 510 as a modification). - Whether the court abused its discretion in awarding only limited attorney fees to Michael.

Appellate Analysis & Rulings

- Modification of Support: Under 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1) a modification requires a substantial change in circumstances proved by a preponderance of the evidence; appellate review is for abuse of discretion/manifest weight. The court deferred to the trial court’s credibility determinations and concluded the record supports the finding that Michael’s income remained at least $159,000 and that no substantial change occurred. Denial of Michael’s modification motion was affirmed. - Request to Set Expenses: The appellate court held Donielle’s post‑judgment request to allocate future school and medical expenses was, in substance, a section 510 modification, not a standalone section 505(a) set‑expense remedy; because the trial court failed to apply the section 510 framework (and could not make retroactive awards beyond the court’s 30‑day post‑judgment jurisdictional limitation), the court abused its discretion in allocating school expenses. The school‑expense portion of the order (Michael to pay 65%) was vacated. The trial court’s allocation of medical expenses was upheld under 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(2) because it related to the children’s healthcare needs and Michael did not challenge the factual basis for that allocation. - Attorney Fees: Although the trial court did not expressly cite the controlling statute or rule, the record supported the trial court’s reasoned exercise of discretion in awarding only limited fees: (1) compensable time was limited (continuances and unrelated matters were not compensable), and (2) a de minimis award for the initial call/motion work was reasonable. The appellate court affirmed the fee award.

Disposition

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Will County is affirmed in part and vacated in part: denial of Michael’s support‑modification motion and the trial court’s award of medical expenses and the limited attorney‑fee award are affirmed; the trial court’s allocation of school expenses (65% to Michael) is vacated. The appeal was decided on the record despite no appellee brief.