In re Marriage of Biciocchi, 2021 IL App (4th) 200561-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Biciocchi, 2021 IL App (4th) 200561‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Sept. 30, 2021) (Rule 23 non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Michael Biciocchi. Respondent‑Appellee: Lisa Biciocchi n/k/a Lisa Baugh.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court could award retroactive child support for periods before respondent filed a motion seeking modification/support.
2. Whether the trial court erred in the quantum of retroactive support and in ordering petitioner to reimburse respondent for past/unreimbursed medical expenses.
3. Whether petitioner’s incarceration required a “zero‑dollar” support order for the incarceration period or otherwise affected retroactivity.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court modified the trial court’s judgment by reducing the award of retroactive child support to the extent it covered periods before respondent’s timely requests for support, but otherwise affirmed: the trial court did not err in the amount of retroactive support properly awarded nor in ordering petitioner to pay past medical expenses.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The court relied on statutory and procedural limits on retroactive support (noting 750 ILCS 5/510(a) was argued below) and the principle that retroactive awards cannot reach back before the movant properly sought a modification/support order. The court held the trial court exceeded its authority by ordering retroactive support for time periods predating respondent’s requests for that relief. However, for the periods after respondent’s motions were filed, the appellate court found petitioner failed to show the trial court abused its discretion as to the amount awarded. The appellate court also rejected petitioner’s arguments that res judicata or the December 2016 uniform support order barred retroactive claims, observing the earlier orders did not resolve retroactivity. Petitioner’s incarceration did not automatically mandate a zero‑dollar support order; inability to pay requires factual proof and is not dispositive of entitlement to retroactivity.

- Practice implications (practical takeaways for attorneys)
- To preserve retroactive relief, timely and explicit motions seeking modification/support (with proposed retroactive start dates) are critical; courts will not generally award arrears predating the movant’s request.
- When entering consent or uniform support orders, explicitly reserve or address retroactivity/arrears to avoid later disputes.
- If opposing retroactivity, develop a record on movant’s filing dates, custodial periods, and any prior orders; assert res judicata only when an earlier order clearly adjudicated the same claim.
- Incarceration is not an automatic bar to retroactive support — supply clear evidence of inability to pay and timing of incarceration/earnings.
- For unreimbursed medical expenses, keep contemporaneous bills, proof of payments, insurance application of benefits, and itemized accounting; courts will allocate past expenses where supported.

Note: Opinion filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 — non‑precedential except as allowed by rule.