In re Marriage of Connelly, 2019 IL App (2d) 180701‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Connelly, No. 2‑18‑0701, Ill. App. Ct. (2d Dist.) (Order filed Aug. 12, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellee: Chad J. Connelly. Respondent/Appellant: Jodie M. Connelly.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether a marital settlement agreement that purports to bar modification of child support (except downward if father loses employment) precludes a court‑ordered reduction after an employment interruption and partial emancipation of children.
- Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of support.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying mother’s attorney fee petition.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s prospective reduction of Chad’s child support to the statutory guideline for one child and affirmed denial of Jodie’s fee petition.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Contract interpretation: settlement agreements are construed as contracts; plain meaning controls. The agreement here expressly allowed a downward modification if Chad lost employment, and the court treated that language as consistent with the reduction ordered. The court did not need to resolve the trial court’s separate finding that a blanket no‑modification clause was unenforceable.
- Change in circumstances: the court found a substantial change — two older children were emancipated (one married, one beginning college) and only the youngest remained a support basis; equal parenting time also relevant. The modification was made prospectively and calculated under the statutory guideline for one child, using agreed income figures (father’s monthly income found to be $13,325; mother’s $4,078). The court applied the guideline to any future bonus income.
- Attorney fees: denied for lack of submitted billing invoices and insufficient showing of need despite income disparity.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Draft settlement provisions with precision: clauses attempting to bar modification entirely risk public‑policy scrutiny; if parties intend post‑emancipation support or non‑modifiability, specify triggers, duration, retroactivity, and treatment of bonuses/variable pay.
- Anticipate emancipation effects: courts will consider emancipation of older children as a material change and may recalculate support for remaining children.
- Prove fee claims: submit contemporaneous billing and documentation; income disparity alone may not secure fees.
- Litigation posture: modification rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; contractual interpretation is de novo — preserve record on both factual and legal points (transcripts/bystander reports).
- Note: this is a Rule 23 order (non‑precedential).