In re Marriage of Alpert Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Alpert Knight, 2024 IL App (1st) 230629.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Amanda Alpert Knight. Respondent‑Appellee: Robert Greenwell Knight III.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a child‑support modification is warranted where the noncustodial parent’s income/net worth substantially increased after entry of a marital settlement agreement (MSA), producing a materially higher standard of living for the children with that parent.
- Scope of discovery and admissibility of evidence (trust documents and experts’ opinions about home repairs/expenses) relevant to a modification motion.
- Effect of contractual MSA provisions (income ranges, deviation clause and annual income confirmations) on later modification.

3. Holding/outcome
- Judgment: Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded.
- The appellate court held the circuit court erred in finding no substantial change in circumstances and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Facts: The 2015 MSA set child support at $10,000/month and listed Robert’s gross income range ($600K–$1.6M) and large nonmarital family trusts (≈$37M+). Amanda later moved (2021) to increase support to $25,000/month, alleging Robert’s income/net worth grew substantially and the children enjoy a significantly higher standard of living with him. Discovery disputes arose over trust documents; the trial court limited trust discovery to trusts naming the children as beneficiaries and excluded Amanda’s experts’ testimony about necessary home repairs/expenses. Robert admitted he could pay any reasonable increased needs and did not intend to assert inability to pay.
- The appellate court found the circuit court’s dismissal of a “substantial change” showing was error given the record evidence of Robert’s enhanced resources and the resulting divergent standards of living for the children. The opinion emphasizes that a parent’s post‑judgment wealth and lifestyle may be relevant to child support modification even where assets are characterized as nonmarital, because modification focuses on children’s needs, parental ability to pay, and maintained standard of living.

5. Practice implications for family lawyers
- MSAs that state income ranges or contain deviation waivers do not necessarily foreclose future modification—use clear, specific waivers (e.g., express permanent waiver of modification) if that is intended.
- When post‑judgment wealth increases materially (especially via trusts), litigants should aggressively pursue discovery into trust assets when relevance to support/ability to pay is plausibly alleged; courts may need to balance trust characterization vs. child‑support relevance.
- Preserve and proffer evidence showing children’s comparative standard of living (expenses, necessary repairs, expert estimates); exclusion of such evidence can be reversible error.
- Consider tactical admissions (or pretrial rulings) regarding inability to pay—such admissions limit defenses but may streamline relief if documented.
- On remand, prepare for recalculation of support and further fact‑finding on the appropriate amount and allocation of child‑related expenses.