In re Marriage of Connelly, 2019 IL App (3d) 180193‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Connelly, No. 3‑18‑0193 (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist., Dec. 18, 2019) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner/Residential parent: Stacy Connelly. Respondent/noncustodial parent: Ryan Connelly.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the respondent demonstrated a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification of a pre‑2017 child support order under 750 ILCS 5/510(a).
- Whether increases in parents’ incomes, increased parenting time, and legislative changes to child‑support guidelines (Public Act 99‑764) suffice as a substantial change.
- Effect of marital settlement agreement (MSA) terms (a “true‑up” percentage provision) on modification analysis.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial of respondent’s petition to modify child support. The court found no abuse of discretion: the claimed changes did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard of review: abuse of discretion; substantial‑change findings will not be disturbed unless no reasonable person would agree.
- Salary increase: a 10% raise for the obligor was not sufficiently substantial (citing prior Illinois authority that relatively small percentage raises are insufficient). Further, the MSA expressly required the obligor to pay 28% of any income above his $100,000 base (a “true‑up”), so the raise had been contemplated and was contractually addressed.
- Custodial parent income: increases (salary, dividends from a portfolio that was awarded to her as inheritance in the MSA) were not treated as a windfall; the award and anticipated income were known to parties at dissolution and thus were considered at baseline. Small increases in both parents’ income do not necessarily justify modification when both now have more to spend on the children.
- Parenting time: an increase from roughly 32% to ~45% (about 22 additional nights/year) was not shown to produce the kind of concrete, measurable change in children’s needs or the obligor’s expenses necessary to warrant modification.
- Legislative change alone (adoption of income‑shares model in P.A. 99‑764) does not constitute a substantial change for pre‑July‑1‑2017 judgments.

5) Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Draft MSAs to anticipate income/bonus/dividend changes and include clear true‑up or deviation clauses to limit later modification claims.
- When pursuing modification, quantify the net financial impact (disposable income, concrete incremental child costs) and link parenting‑time changes to measurable increased/decreased expenditures. Bare percentage changes in salary or nights are often insufficient.
- For pre‑2017 orders, advise clients that invoking the new income‑shares guidelines requires proving a substantial change; the statutory enactment itself is not enough.
- Preserve evidence of parties’ knowledge/exchange about assets (inheritances, portfolios) at dissolution; disclosure issues can be dispositive.
- Expect wide trial court discretion and strong appellate deference on substantial‑change determinations.