In re Marriage of Buttram, 2019 IL App (4th) 190020-U

In re Marriage of Buttram, 2019 IL App (4th) 190020‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Suellen Buttram (Petitioner‑Appellee) v. Aron Buttram (Respondent‑Appellant), No. 4‑19‑0020 (4th Dist. July 25, 2019). (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential.)

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s denial of respondent’s petition to modify child support (alleging a substantial decrease in his income) was against the manifest weight of the evidence/abuse of discretion.
- Whether the trial court properly limited respondent’s proof to the grounds pled in his petition.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a midtrial continuance so respondent could retain counsel.
- Whether petitioner’s failure to file a recalculated child‑support worksheet was error where she asserted no change in circumstances.
- Admissibility/foundation for respondent’s tax documents.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court did not err: respondent failed to prove a substantial income decrease; the court permissibly limited the evidence to the pleaded ground; denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion; petitioner was allowed to rely on her position that no substantial change occurred (so no recalculation necessary); and respondent forfeited challenge to exclusion of tax records.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: factual finding that respondent failed to prove a substantial change was reviewed for manifest weight; modification denials reviewed for abuse of discretion. The court found adequate evidence supported the trial court’s finding that respondent did not prove his income dropped as alleged.
- Pleading principle: the trial court acted properly in barring evidence outside the scope of respondent’s petition (fair notice to opposing party).
- Continuance: request was made at trial with no showing of diligent efforts to secure counsel — trial court’s denial was reasonable.
- Calculations: petitioner’s choice to maintain the unappealed dissolution terms (arguing no change) made filing a recalculation unnecessary.
- Evidentiary foundation: respondent failed to show he laid the proper foundation for tax documents and provided no authority excusing foundation, so exclusion was not error (and was forfeited on appeal due to inadequate argument).

5) Practice implications for family attorneys
- Plead all bases for modification at the outset (income changes to either parent; parenting‑time changes; etc.) or risk evidentiary exclusion.
- Preserve and clearly lay foundation for financial records (tax returns, payroll, bank records) at trial; contemporaneous objections and rulings should be addressed on the record.
- Timely move for continuances and demonstrate diligence if seeking counsel mid‑trial.
- If asserting “no substantial change,” explicitly state that position and consider whether a worksheet is necessary; but beware appellate scrutiny on factual findings.
- Remember Rule 23 decisions are non‑precedential; however, the standards (manifest weight/abuse of discretion) and pleading/evidence principles remain controlling.