Anderson
Key Insights
Reversal Rate
100%
Case History
3 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Anderson
In re Marriage of Anderson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200191‑U 1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Anderson, 2021 IL App (3d) 200191‑U (Aug. 13, 2021) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). - Petitioner‑Appellant: Michelle T. Anderson (n/k/a Michelle T. Mustain). Respondent‑Appellee: Bryan C. Anderson. 2. Key legal issues - Whether the trial court erred in modifying parental decision‑making (healthcare, extracurriculars) to joint control. - Whether the court abused its discretion in denying an in‑camera interview of the children under 750 ILCS 5/604.10. - Whether the trial court improperly failed to give children’s wishes controlling weight or to impose restrictions on respondent’s parenting time (including under 750 ILCS 5/603.10). - Whether child support should have been recalculated or otherwise modified after the change in overnights. 3. Holding/outcome - The appellate court affirmed. The trial court’s allocation of joint decision‑making (healthcare and extracurricular activities), its expansion of respondent’s parenting time, its denial of an in‑camera interview, and its refusal to impose parenting‑time restrictions were not erroneous. The court directed that respondent’s child support be recalculated based on the modified overnight schedule; Michelle failed to show an improper change in child support. 4. Significant legal reasoning - Standards: modification of parental responsibilities requires a substantial change in circumstances and determination of the child’s best interests (reviewed for manifest weight); in‑camera interviews are discretionary. The trial court found a substantial change (including mother’s relocation) and applied the best‑interest factors in 750 ILCS 5/602.5 and 602.7. - The GAL had interviewed each child three times and submitted recommendations; the court reasonably declined an in‑camera interview, concluding additional interviews would further stress the children and add little value. The court noted that although the parties were hostile, Michelle had repeatedly made unilateral healthcare decisions (and “catastrophized”), negatively affecting the children and justifying joint decision‑making. - The opinion emphasized deference to the trial court’s factual findings and credibility assessments, and noted many appellant arguments were forfeited for lack of developed briefing. Bryan did not file an appellee brief, but the appellate court reached the merits. 5. Practice implications - Preserve and develop arguments fully on appeal; unsupported issues risk forfeiture. Provide clear evidence of a “substantial change” and of harm to justify restrictions under §603.10. - When a GAL has thoroughly interviewed children and reported, courts may decline in‑camera interviews as a matter of discretion; anticipate the GAL’s report and use it proactively. - Relocation affecting travel/overnights can constitute a substantial change and justify modification of parenting time and child‑support recalculation based on overnights. - Trial court factual findings and credibility determinations receive substantial deference; appellate reversal is difficult absent clear contrary proof.
In re Marriage of Anderson
1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Anderson, 2021 IL App (1st) 191535-U (1st Dist. June 24, 2021). - Petitioner: Jason M. Anderson. Respondent-Appellee: Vikki L. Anderson. Appellant: Elfreda Dockery (Vikki’s former attorney) — appeal from denial of attorney-fee petition under 750 ILCS 5/508(c). 2. Key legal issues - Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying an attorney’s petition for unpaid fees under § 508(c) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act. - Whether the fees charged were reasonable and necessary given the nature of the dissolution (claimed to be uncontested vs. counsel’s contention that matter became contested). 3. Holding / outcome - The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Dockery’s request for $3,181.45 in additional fees and finding that many billed charges were unreasonable and unnecessary in light of the case’s lack of complexity and the procedural history. 4. Significant legal reasoning - Standard of review: fee awards under § 508 are reviewed for abuse of discretion. The trial court’s factual findings about reasonableness and necessity of fees are controlling. - The fee agreement here provided a flat $825 for an “uncontested divorce” and an hourly rate ($250/hour) if the matter became contested. The trial court found the attorney did not justify converting to hourly billing because the record showed unnecessary delay and work: substantial time elapsed between retention (Dec. 2017) and filing/appearance (April 2018); entries showed drafted but unfiled appearances; service delays could have been avoided had counsel promptly filed an appearance; discovery and financial affidavits were not exchanged for months; counsel made no court appearances before withdrawal. - The court concluded many billed tasks were avoidable, not reasonably necessary to the litigation’s resolution, and inconsistent with an uncontested case. Dockery’s “newly discovered” evidence (testimony of opposing counsel that the case was contested) was not sufficiently dispositive to change the discretionary ruling. 5. Practice implications (concise takeaways for practitioners) - Keep contemporaneous, specific time entries and contemporaneous evidence showing why contested work was necessary. Vague or after‑the‑fact billing entries are vulnerable. - If retention contemplates a flat fee for “uncontested” matters, promptly confirm and document any client consent before converting to hourly billing; file an appearance promptly if representing a client to prevent procedural delay and to support fee claims. - Courts will scrutinize attorney billing in dissolutions that are nominally uncontested; unnecessary drafting, failing to file, or prolonged inactivity can justify denial of additional fees. - Preserve evidence that the matter became truly contested (e.g., discovery requests, contested temporary relief, documented client instructions) to support an hourly-fee claim.
In re Marriage of Anderson
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Anderson, 2019 IL App (5th) 180504‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. Apr. 12, 2019) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellee: Mark S. Anderson. Respondent‑Appellant: Andrea Anderson. - Key legal issues 1) Whether the trial court properly enjoined the mother to return children to Illinois based on the Illinois "relocation" provisions of the Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/600(g)(3), 609.2(c)) when the move occurred before a dissolution petition/allocation of parental responsibilities was filed. 2) Whether the trial court complied with the statutory requirements for injunctive relief under section 11‑101 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/11‑101). - Holding/outcome The appellate court reversed the trial court’s injunction ordering the children returned to Illinois. It concluded the petitioner invoked the wrong statutory framework and the injunction failed to comply with section 11‑101 requirements. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) The court emphasized that the MDA relocation provisions apply in the context of allocation/parenting plans (i.e., where a parent with a parenting allocation intends to change the child's primary residence outside Illinois by more than 25 miles). Because the respondent relocated before a dissolution petition/parenting allocation had been entered, the statutory notice/relocation scheme the petitioner relied upon was inapplicable. The trial court nonetheless applied the relocation standard and denied the respondent’s motion to strike; the appellate court found that approach legally incorrect. Separately, the appellate panel pointed to deficiencies in the trial court’s injunctive order under 735 ILCS 5/11‑101 (procedural and statutory prerequisites for issuing injunctions), undermining the order’s validity. For those reasons the injunction was reversed. - Practice implications for family lawyers - Plead the correct statutory basis for emergency custody/return relief. The MDA relocation/notice scheme is tied to allocation/parenting plans; it is not a catch‑all vehicle when a parent moves pre‑petition. - When seeking emergency injunctive relief, strictly comply with 735 ILCS 5/11‑101 procedural requirements (appropriate pleadings, findings, bond/notice requirements where applicable, and proof supporting emergency injunctive standards). - Move promptly: file a dissolution/temporary‑relief petition to invoke custodial injunctions available in divorce proceedings (and to obtain custody/residence orders) rather than relying on relocation statutes designed for post‑allocation changes. - Consider jurisdictional remedies (UCCJEA/emergency jurisdiction) and develop record on irreparable harm, likelihood of success, and best interests when asking a court for immediate return of children. - Note: this is a Rule 23 (non‑precedential) appellate order.
In re Marriage of Anderson
# In re Marriage of Anderson, No. 3-09-0829 (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 15, 2010) Parties - Petitioner/Appellee: Michael Anderson - Respondent/Appellant: Molly A. Murphy (f/k/a Molly A. Anderson) Key legal issues 1. What constitutes “net income” for child support under §505(a)(3) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act — specifically whether proceeds from a forced sale of nonmarital stock, bonus/commission income, and gifts/loans are includable. 2. Whether maintenance should be terminated based on changed circumstances. 3. Award and allocation of attorney fees for post-dissolution enforcement litigation. 4. Reallocation of children’s uninsured medical expenses. 5. Return of personal property the children left with the noncustodial parent. 6. Tax-exemption rights when a parent fails to amend returns. 7. Modification of financial reporting requirements. Holding / outcome (summary) - The trial court: ordered past-due child support/maintenance ($31,892.88); modified ongoing child support to the statutory percentage of Michael’s current employment net income (excluding the AEC dividends after the stock was cashed out); terminated maintenance (effective June 1, 2009); allocated uncovered medical expenses 50/50; denied return of many items to Molly as gifts or previously purchased; permitted Molly to claim both children as exemptions until majority because Michael failed to amend returns; required Michael to provide annual W-2s and notice of employment changes; awarded Molly $25,000 in attorney fees. - The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed/remanded in part, vacated/remanded in part (see significant reasoning below). Significant legal reasoning - Statutory interpretation of “income” under §505(a)(3) is a question of law reviewed de novo; courts give undefined statutory terms their plain and ordinary meaning. - The court treated dividend streams as income when received, but a one-time forced liquidation of nonmarital stock (a capital transaction the owner could not control) was not treated as recurring “income” for child support purposes. As a result, cessation of dividend payments constituted a substantial change in circumstances supporting modification/termination. - Gifts and intermittent transfers from family must be supported by evidence of regularity or constructive receipt before being imputed as income. - Failure to timely amend tax returns that prejudices the custodial parent can justify awarding dependency exemptions to protect that parent. - Repeated noncompliance and protracted enforcement litigation can support an award of attorney fees. Practice implications - Distinguish capital receipts (forced stock sales, one‑time lump sums) from recurring income when arguing support calculations; document predictability/regularity of any nonwage receipts before seeking imputation. - When dividends or other streams end, file prompt motions to modify support/maintenance — courts will consider cessation a substantial change. - Preserve evidence of gifts/loans (frequency, intent, documentation) if you seek or oppose imputation. - Enforce opposing parties’ tax‑return obligations early; failure to cooperate can yield remedial tax‑exemption rulings and fee awards. - Maintain strict compliance with court-ordered financial reporting; noncompliance can justify remedies and fees.
Other 3rd District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Anderson's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Anderson has an overall affirm rate of 0% across 3 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Anderson serve in?
Anderson serves in the Illinois 3rd District Appellate Court.
How often are Anderson's decisions reversed on appeal?
Anderson has a 100% reversal rate, with 3 decisions reversed out of 3 total cases.
Need Strategic Insights for Your Appeal?
Get deeper analytics, outcome forecasts, and compare judges side-by-side with a Professional subscription.
Upgrade to Professional