In re Marriage of Chee, 2011 IL App (1st) 102797

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Chee, 2011 IL App (1st) 102797 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 22, 2011).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Nelia C. Chee. Respondent‑Appellee: Samuel V. Chee.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a trial court lacks authority under 750 ILCS 5/513(a)(2) to adjudicate and allocate undergraduate college expenses when the petition is filed after the child has already received a baccalaureate degree.
- Proper construction of the statute’s termination clause: does it bar post‑degree adjudication of undergraduate expenses or merely bar awards for education beyond a baccalaureate (absent disability)?

3. Holding / outcome
- Reversed and remanded. The appellate court held the trial court erred in dismissing the petition solely because the children had already received their bachelor’s degrees. Section 513’s termination clause does not preclude a court from adjudicating undergraduate expense claims filed after a degree is conferred; it instead bars awards for post‑baccalaureate (graduate/advanced) education except where the child is physically or mentally disabled and unemancipated.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Statutory interpretation governs: courts first give words their plain meaning and read the statute as a whole.
- The legislature intended to codify the then‑existing practice allowing courts, in dissolution/parentage cases, to allocate college (post‑high‑school) expenses as a form of child support. Section 513 enumerates permissible undergraduate expenses.
- Reading the termination clause to mean courts lose all authority the moment a diploma is issued would produce impractical and absurd results (e.g., barring equitable apportionment of already‑incurred undergraduate costs).
- Accordingly, the statute more reasonably is read to terminate authority to order education beyond a baccalaureate (i.e., graduate degrees), while preserving authority to adjudicate and apportion undergraduate costs even if a degree has been bestowed.

5. Practice implications for attorneys
- Do not assume a petition to allocate undergraduate college costs is untimely merely because a child has graduated; courts can still hear and allocate undergraduate expenses.
- Plead and preserve claims for undergraduate expenses, include detailed accounting of incurred costs and dates, and seek retention of jurisdiction language in interim orders.
- Expect that requests for graduate/post‑baccalaureate funding will be subject to the statutory bar unless the child is disabled and unemancipated.
- Use parentage/putative spouse and retention of jurisdiction theories when marital status is contested to preserve remedies for educational support.