In re Marriage of Broderick, 2022 IL App (1st) 211402-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Broderick, 2022 IL App (1st) 211402-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., Sept. 30, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Jeralyn Broderick. Respondent‑Appellant: Richard Broderick.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court could require Richard to contribute to daughter Rachel’s college expenses when he lacked reliable access to her grades (a prior court order conditioned payments on receipt of grade reports).
- Whether the trial court erred by making contributions retroactive to semesters before Richard filed his petition for contribution.
- Whether the trial court could require contributions for more than four years of post‑secondary education.
- Whether the trial court properly applied the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (MSA) and §513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (cap at in‑state UIUC tuition) in calculating obligations.

3. Holding/outcome
- The appellate court reversed and remanded. It held the circuit court erred by failing to determine the full effect of an earlier order (Jan. 7, 2016) that imposed a condition precedent—parents must be provided copies of each child’s grade reports before future college payments would occur—and by entering a later order that conflicted with that condition without resolving it.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA obligated both parents to contribute to post‑high school educational expenses in line with §513. After modification proceedings in 2016, the court expressly conditioned ongoing college payments on parents receiving grade reports; that order changed the preexisting MSA framework by adding a condition precedent.
- The trial court’s October 1, 2021 order (entered by a different judge) awarded Richard the statutory maximum ($31,000/year using UIUC as the template), ordered retroactive payments to Rachel’s first semester, required payment for an extra semester caused by a major change, and split remaining costs among the parties. The October order did not address the 2016 grade‑access condition.
- Because the later order conflicted with the 2016 condition precedent, the appellate court concluded the trial court should have resolved whether the condition was satisfied (i.e., whether grade access was granted) before imposing obligations and retroactivity.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- When litigating college contribution, identify and litigate any prior orders that create condition precedents (e.g., grade access) before seeking or enforcing payments.
- Preserve and present evidence of compliance with conditions (grade reports, student consent/FERPA issues) and obtain specific factual findings on whether conditions were satisfied.
- Challenge or seek clarification when trial courts use statutory templates (UIUC cap under 750 ILCS 5/513(d)(1)) or impose retroactivity — obtain precise calculations, invoices, proof of payments, and clear start dates.
- On change of judges, move to enforce/clarify prior judge’s procedural directives to prevent conflicting orders.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this opinion is non‑precedential but instructive on procedure and resolving conflicts between prior orders and later awards.