In re Marriage of Conopeotis, 2022 IL App (2d) 191099-U

In re Marriage of Conopeotis, 2022 IL App (2d) 191099‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of William George Conopeotis and Lydia Ann Conopeotis, No. 2‑19‑1099 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., July 28, 2022) (Rule 23(b) order; non‑precedential). Petitioner/appellee (husband) William G. Conopeotis; respondent/appellant (wife) Lydia A. Conopeotis. Appeal and cross‑appeal from Lake County dissolution judgment.

2) Key legal issues
- Proper determination of husband’s gross/net income for child support and maintenance (including use of multi‑year averaging).
- Whether trial court improperly relied on computer software calculations.
- Whether income should be imputed to the wife.
- Whether the court abused discretion by not deviating from statutory child support guidelines.
- Allocation of children’s medical insurance premium costs.
- Award (or denial) of contribution to attorney fees.
- Credibility findings and mathematical errors in income computation.

3) Holding / outcome
- Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- Trial court’s credibility finding against husband was not against manifest weight.
- Wife estopped (acquiescence/invited error) from challenging reliance on software because she accepted it below.
- Use of tax law in effect at time of calculation was proper.
- Three‑year averaging of husband’s gross income was permissible; no abuse in declining upward deviation from guidelines.
- Trial court made mathematical errors and included income that did not belong to husband — requiring remand to recalculate 2014–2016 averages, net income, and support obligations.
- Imputation of income to wife was proper.
- Trial court erred in allocating 100% of children’s insurance premium to husband — remand to allocate premiums proportionally to parties’ net incomes.
- No abuse in denying fee contributions to either party.

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Credibility: appellate court deferred to trial court’s fact‑finding.
- Preservation/estoppel: party who accepted software output at trial cannot later complain on appeal about the court’s reliance on that output (invited error/acquiescence doctrine).
- Income: net income for support computed under tax law in effect when calculation made; multi‑year averaging is an acceptable method to smooth fluctuating self‑employment income.
- Remand mandated where numerical errors or improper income inclusions affect support calculations and premium allocation — requiring corrected computations and proportional division of insurance costs.

5) Practice implications
- Meticulously preserve objections to evidentiary tools (software) and computational methods at trial — do not acquiesce if you intend to appeal.
- Provide clear, reconciled financial exhibits and expert testimony to prevent mathematical errors; demand detailed findings and raw calculations.
- When supporting/contesting income averaging or imputation, present contemporaneous earnings history, job‑search logs, and market comparables.
- Argue allocation of insurance premiums under statutory proportionality to net income; secure specific findings on premium responsibility.
- Seek targeted posttrial findings or corrections (and bills of exceptions) where arithmetic mistakes affect support/maintenance figures.