In re Marriage of Ash, 2021 IL App (1st) 200901

- 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.