In re Marriage of Anson, 2019 IL App (5th) 180152-U

In re Marriage of Anson, No. 5-18-0152 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. Feb. 7, 2019) (Rule 23 order)

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Anson, 2019 IL App (5th) 180152-U. Petitioner-Appellant: Randy Anson. Respondent-Appellee: Kristie Anson. (Rule 23 order — may not be cited as precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering orders setting child support, determining child-support arrearage, and allocating college expenses without holding a separate evidentiary hearing on those issues.
- Whether the trial court’s calculation of child-support arrearage required correction.
- Proper scope of “reasonable college expenses” for post‑secondary support.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determinations as not an abuse of discretion, but modified the trial court’s order to correct a mathematical miscalculation of the child‑support arrearage. (Underlying final order had directed increased monthly child support and college contribution payments; appeal limited to procedural sufficiency and arrearage calculation.)

4) Significant legal reasoning
- The court applied the abuse‑of‑discretion standard. It found the child‑support, arrearage, and college‑expense issues had been repeatedly raised and expressly reserved during the long litigation; the trial court ordered and solicited income documentation and briefing from parties; and the petitioner (Randy) ultimately supplied financial affidavits and tax returns and never requested a separate evidentiary hearing nor objected to the mother’s calculations on those pending issues. Given those circumstances, resolving the issues based on the existing filings and testimony did not amount to denial of a hearing.
- The court reiterated that a party may not unilaterally stop paying ordered support. On college expenses, the court limited “reasonable college expenses” to tuition, fees and one‑half of room and board (here treated with reference to John A. Logan Community College), and explicitly excluded automobile expenses as unnecessary college costs.
- The appellate court corrected a computational error in the arrearage amount and remanded only to the extent necessary to reflect the corrected figure.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve objections: a parent disputing income or support calculations must expressly request an evidentiary hearing and preserve that request in the trial court record.
- Timely produce and request financial documentation and transcripts; failure to object to opposing party’s figures or to demand a hearing risks forfeiture.
- When litigating college contributions, focus proof on “reasonable” expenses (tuition/fees; room/board where appropriate); uncommon items (auto costs) are less likely recoverable.
- Check and present precise arrearage computations; appellate courts will correct clear mathematical errors but are reluctant to overturn discretionary factual conclusions absent preserved objections.