In RE MARRIAGE OF McGRATH, 970 N.E.2d 12

1. Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of McGrath, 970 N.E.2d 12 (Ill. 2012) (No. 112792; Supreme Court of Illinois, May 24, 2012). Appellee: Mary Ellen McGrath. Appellant: Martin Gibbons McGrath.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether regular withdrawals from a non‑IRA savings account constitute "income" under §505 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act for purposes of calculating child support.
- Whether a court may include such withdrawals in "net income" or must instead treat the parent's asset withdrawals as a non‑income factor when deciding whether to deviate from guideline support.

3. Holding/outcome
The Illinois Supreme Court reversed. Money a parent routinely withdraws from his savings account is not "income" under §505 and therefore may not be included in the calculation of net income for guideline child support. The cause was remanded for recalculation excluding those withdrawals; the trial court may still consider the parent's assets (and make a §505(a)(2) deviation finding) after computing guideline support correctly.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory interpretation: §505 defines "net income" as "the total of all income from all sources" but does not define "income." Applying Rogers and ordinary dictionary definitions, the Court held "income" means recurrent gains or receipts (pay, earnings, investment returns). Withdrawals of principal from an account are not new receipts or gains because the funds already belonged to the owner.
- The Court rejected the appellate court's approach of looking for an express statutory exclusion of savings withdrawals; the correct inquiry is whether the withdrawals qualify as "income" at all.
- The Court emphasized proper procedure: calculate guideline support based on actual net income, then, if inappropriate, expressly deviate under §505(a)(2) and state reasons (including the noncustodial parent's financial resources under §505(a)(2)(e)). Imputation of income remains available where appropriate (e.g., voluntary unemployment), but was not applied here.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Do not rely on routine principal withdrawals from savings as "income" when arguing guideline support; oppose their inclusion on appeal under McGrath.
- When a parent lives off assets, litigate two tracks: (a) compute guideline support from true net income (excluding principal withdrawals); (b) separately develop and ask the court to make an explicit §505(a)(2) deviation based on the parent's assets, withdrawals and standard of living, or seek imputation of income if evidence supports voluntary underemployment.
- Trial courts must state the guideline amount and reasons for any deviation; practitioners should preserve and develop facts on asset holdings, withdrawal patterns, and employment opportunity to support deviation or imputation.