In re Marriage of Petersen, 955 N.E.2d 1131 (Ill. 2011)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Janet Kellogg Petersen (Appellant) and Kevin Petersen (Appellee), 955 N.E.2d 1131, 353 Ill. Dec. 320 (Ill. Sept. 22, 2011) — Illinois Supreme Court.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether college/educational expenses under 750 ILCS 5/513 constitute “support” subject to modification procedures in 750 ILCS 5/510.
- Whether a post-dissolution petition seeking allocation of college expenses (where the original decree expressly reserved the issue) is a “modification” under section 510.
- Whether a court may order contribution for college expenses incurred before the moving party filed a petition to modify.

3) Holding / outcome
- The Illinois Supreme Court held that (a) section 513 college expenses are a form of child support and are governed by section 510; (b) a petition to allocate college expenses where the decree reserved the issue is a modification within the meaning of section 510; and (c) any modification under section 510 is prospective only — the court may order contributions only for installments accruing after due notice (i.e., the filing date of the petition). The appellate court’s partial reversal (precluding awards for pre-petition expenses) and affirmation of the 75% allocation were effectively upheld as to retroactivity principles.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory construction: The Court read section 510(a) broadly to cover "support" obligations created under both sections 505 and 513; historical amendments and precedent treated section 513 education obligations as support.
- Definition of “modify”: The term means to change or alter obligations under a final decree. Reserving college expenses in the dissolution decree preserved the status quo; a later petition seeking to impose obligations changes that status and therefore constitutes a modification.
- Retroactivity/notice rationale: Section 510 limits modification to installments accruing after due notice of the modification motion to protect respondents by giving prior notice of changed obligations; thus courts cannot order payment for pre-filing expenses.

5) Practice implications (concise)
- Draft dissolution decrees carefully: explicitly address college expense allocation or expressly state reservation consequences to avoid later disputes.
- File promptly: parties seeking contribution for postsecondary expenses should file a petition promptly to maximize recoverable installments (retroactivity limited to filing date).
- Settlement leverage: reserving the issue can produce future modification exposure but limits retroactive recovery — use this in negotiation strategy.
- Litigants should preserve and document education-related communications and costs but understand unrecoverable past expenses risk if not timely litigated.