In re Marriage of Benyon, 2019 IL App (3d) 180364

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Benyon, 2019 IL App (3d) 180364 (3d Dist. May 7, 2019).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Allison Benyon. Respondent‑Appellant: Steven Benyon. (Appeal from Will County; judgment reversed.)

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a minor child’s SSDI dependent benefit must be included in the benefit‑generating parent’s gross income for child‑support purposes under the IMDMA.
- Whether a trial court may direct that the child’s SSDI dependent benefit be deposited into a joint account earmarked for “excess” or future expenses (e.g., college) rather than applied to current child support.

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed. The Appellate Court held the trial court erred: the SSDI dependent benefit must be treated as income to the husband (the benefit‑generating parent) and used for the child’s current support. The court ordered the SSDI dependent benefit paid to the husband for the child’s support (not sequestered into a joint/savings account for future expenses).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Federal law and regulations treat SSDI dependent benefits as generated by the worker’s earnings for the dependent child’s current maintenance (42 U.S.C. §402(d); 20 C.F.R. §§404.366, 404.2040(a); In re Marriage of Henry).
- The IMDMA, as amended by Pub. Act 99‑764 (eff. July 1, 2017), expressly requires inclusion of such SSDI benefits in the benefit‑generating parent’s gross income for child‑support calculations (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3)(A)). The trial court’s refusal to count the benefit as income misapplied that statutory scheme.
- Both parents have joint, current obligations to support the child and maintain the child’s standard of living; SSDI intended for current maintenance should therefore be used accordingly. Any amount in excess of current needs may be considered a gratuity, but the court cited no authority permitting mandatory segregation of SSDI into a future‑use account.

5. Practice implications (for attorneys)
- Always include client’s children’s SSDI dependent benefits in gross income/support calculations where statute/regulation requires.
- If a client seeks to sequester SSDI for future needs, obtain explicit legal authority or craft express, statutory‑compliant language; courts may reject orders that divert SSDI from current support.
- Draft support/judgment language addressing SSDI receipt, disbursement, and responsibility for “excess” costs (medical, extracurricular) to avoid ambiguity and appellate reversal.
- Consider joint custody allocations, offsets for timeshare, potential tax/guardian issues, and the mechanics of paying/holding SSDI (bank account titling, custodial accounts, or court‑approved trusts) when advising clients.