Mason
Key Insights
Affirmance Rate
17%
Reversal Rate
83%
Case History
6 Cases
Case Outcomes
Recent Decisions
In re Marriage of Matt
1. Case citation and parties - In re Marriage of Matt, 2023 IL App (1st) 221405‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Mar. 10, 2023) (Rule 23 order). - Plaintiff‑Appellee: Peter Matt. Defendant‑Appellant (pro se): Megan Matt (n/k/a Megan Mason). 2. Key legal issues - Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a September 13, 2022 “Temporary Order” that (temporarily) restricted mother’s parenting time, required supervised visits, and temporarily allocated parental responsibilities to father. - Whether Rules 301 (appeals as of right), 304(b)(6) (immediate appeals in custody matters), 306 (leave to appeal interlocutory custody orders), or 311 (expedited custody appeals) provided a basis for jurisdiction. 3. Holding/outcome - Appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal was temporary/interim and not final; appellant had not sought leave under Rule 306 for an interlocutory custody appeal; Rule 304(b)(6) and Rule 311 apply only to final custody orders; Rule 306 relief was not invoked in the trial court or properly in the initial appellate brief. 4. Significant legal reasoning - Finality: The court applied Rule 301’s final‑judgment standard and Rule 304’s requirement that custody appeals under 304(b)(6) be from permanent custody determinations (Committee Comments; case law). The challenged order expressly labeled and operated as “temporary” and was effective only until completion of a 604.10(b) report, so it did not dispose of rights permanently. - Procedure for interlocutory custody appeals: Rule 306(a)(5) authorizes petitions for leave to appeal interlocutory orders affecting custody/parental responsibilities; appellant did not petition for leave and raised Rule 306 only in a reply brief (forfeited). - Rule 311 only creates an expedited procedure for final custody appeals and is not an independent source of jurisdiction. 5. Practice implications (concise) - Interlocutory custody orders: obtain and file a Rule 306 petition for leave before appealing; absence of leave is fatal. - Distinguish temporary/interim orders from final custody determinations — do not rely on Rule 304(b) or Rule 301 for temporary orders. - Raise jurisdictional bases (e.g., Rule 306) in the initial brief; do not wait until reply. - Careful drafting: if an appealable permanent ruling is intended, ensure the order’s language and record reflect a final determination (or obtain the trial court’s express finding under Rule 304 when appropriate). - Note: this is a non‑precedential Rule 23 disposition, but it underscores common procedural pitfalls that will lead to dismissal and delay in family cases.
In re Marriage of Ash
- Case citation and parties In re Marriage of Ash, 2021 IL App (1st) 200901. Petitioner-Appellee: Allison L. Ash (f/k/a Allison L. Matschke). Respondent-Appellant: Mason H.C. Matschke. - Key legal issues 1. Whether loans/payments made by the wife’s parents should be imputed as the wife’s income for child support and maintenance. 2. Whether the trial court properly modified husband’s maintenance and child support obligations after changed circumstances (child emancipation; alleged income decrease). 3. Whether the trial court permissibly deviated upward from the statutory child support guidelines. - Holding / outcome The appellate court affirmed the trial court. It held the parents’ payments were loans (not includable as the wife’s income), the trial court correctly found a substantial change in circumstances justifying modification, and the court’s deviation from the guidelines was permissible under the statute and supported by the evidence. - Significant legal reasoning (concise) - Loans vs. income: Citing In re Marriage of Tegeler and applying the Marriage Act, the court explained that family loan proceeds are not automatically income for support calculations. The trial court’s factual finding that Allison and her parents intended repayment (supported by IOUs, promissory notes, a detailed family log, and evidence of periodic accounting) meant those payments were loans, not imputed income. - Modification: The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances (one child reached majority/emancipation and the husband’s income declined). The court averaged the husband’s income over 2016–2018 to arrive at current income and reduced maintenance accordingly (to $1,932.38 every two weeks). The court found the income reduction was not in bad faith. - Deviation from guidelines: Although the computed child support under the statutory guidelines was lower, the court invoked section 505(3.4) to deviate upward because a remaining minor child had special medical/related needs and the custodial parent’s ability to work was limited. The appellate court found the deviation justified and within discretion. - Practice implications for family attorneys - Document family loans comprehensively (signed IOUs/promissory notes, logs, cancelled checks, repayment history) if you want them excluded from income calculations; absence of such proof risks income imputation. - Expect courts to average multi‑year income streams (bonuses, deferred/structured payments) when calculating income; challenge or support averaging with clear evidence about recurring vs. one‑time amounts. - When seeking or defending deviations from guideline support, develop a strong factual record on child special needs and custodial parent work capacity. - On appeal, factual findings (intent to repay, reasonableness of deviation) receive deference; preserve record and evidentiary support at trial.
Other 1st District Judges
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Mason's overall affirm rate on family law appeals?
Mason has an overall affirm rate of 17% across 6 family law cases reviewed.
Which Illinois appellate district does Mason serve in?
Mason serves in the Illinois 1st District Appellate Court.
How often are Mason's decisions reversed on appeal?
Mason has a 83% reversal rate, with 5 decisions reversed out of 6 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