In re Marriage of Biewer, 2022 IL App (3d) 210114-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Biewer, 2022 IL App (3d) 210114‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Feb. 1, 2022) (Rule 23 order, non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Jace J. Biewer. Respondent‑Appellee: Heidi M. Biewer.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s petition to modify child support based on an alleged reduction in trust distributions.
- Whether the trial court erred in finding petitioner in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay child support and incarcerating him until he could purge the contempt.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying modification because petitioner failed to show a substantial change in circumstances. The challenge to the contempt order was moot because petitioner purged the contempt (trust posted a bond and arrearage was paid).

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: modification of support reviewed for abuse of discretion; modification requires a substantial change in circumstances (750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1)).
- The court found petitioner’s asserted reduction to $695/month from the trust was unsupported. Financial affidavits and attachments showed ongoing, substantial trust disbursements (e.g., monthly figures in the $3–4k range). Petitioner’s sole income remained trust distributions and he remained unemployed, so there was no threshold change warranting modification.
- The court rejected petitioner’s contention that payments the trust made directly for his bills were not “gross income.” Under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3)(A), gross income includes income from all sources; whether the trustee pays funds directly or provides in‑kind benefits, the economic benefit to the payee counts for support calculations.
- The trust’s unilateral decision to stop remitting payments to the obligee did not constitute a change in petitioner’s income for modification purposes; the relevant inquiry is the income available to the obligor.
- Contempt: civil contempt is coercive; once the contemnor purges (here by bond posted by the trust and arrearage paid), appellate relief is moot. (Citing mootness and civil contempt principles.)

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- When support originates from a trust or third‑party payer, litigate and document the obligor’s actual income (bank/trust records, trustee testimony) — both direct distributions and in‑kind benefits are includable as gross income.
- A third party’s cessation of payments does not automatically justify modifying an existing obligation; obtain concrete proof of a permanent, material reduction in the obligor’s income.
- If seeking enforcement, pursue contempt promptly but anticipate that remediation (payment or bond) will moot appellate challenges to contempt. Consider joining the trustee or seeking discovery/turnover remedies to address payment source issues rather than relying solely on modification.