In re Marriage of Conti Mica, 2019 IL App (2d) 181030-U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Conti Mica, 2019 IL App (2d) 181030‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Dec. 19, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Kimberly Conti Mica. Respondent‑Appellant: Frank Conti Mica.

2) Key legal issues
- How to determine a self‑employed spouse’s income for maintenance and child‑support calculations where income fluctuates and “executive draws” and business‑paid personal expenses are used as compensation.
- Whether the trial court’s averaging/formula and additional percentage‑based true‑up for income above a base amount was inequitable.
- Standard of review for income/findings in maintenance/child‑support awards.

3) Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in averaging Frank’s 2012–2018 projected income to establish a $245,000 gross‑income base for maintenance/child support and in treating executive draws and personal expenses paid by the business as income subject to percentage true‑ups. The court awarded permanent maintenance of $63,100/year ($5,258.33/month) plus 26% of gross income above $245,000 (up to $345,069.47), and child support of $1,194.38/month plus 11% of net income above $126,276. Appellant’s contention of inequity was rejected and his appellate argument was criticized under Rule 341(h)(7).

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Trial courts have broad discretion in determining income for support; findings are overturned only for abuse of discretion or where against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court credited documented historical earnings, bank statements showing draws ($273,000 in 2016; $327,400 in 2017), and business practice rather than isolated recent downturns tied to client changes. It rejected imputing a $100,000 annual income when historical averages and evidence showed materially higher earnings.
- The court explicitly treated “executive draws” and business‑paid personal expenses as part of gross income for support calculations and permitted a percentage allocation of income exceeding a base with annual true‑ups.
- Appellant’s briefing failed to comply with Rule 341(h)(7) standards in parts, undermining that argument on appeal.

5) Practice implications
- For self‑employed clients, expect courts to consider draws, bank statements, and multi‑year averages (not just tax returns) when income fluctuates; clearly document business cash withdrawals and personal expenses paid by the entity.
- If arguing a downturn, present contemporaneous evidence of nonrecurring loss, client loss causation, and reliable projections; propose a concrete alternate calculation rather than speculative averages.
- Anticipate percentage‑based true‑ups and caps; negotiate or litigate thresholds and look‑back procedures (annual true‑ups).
- Draft appellate briefs carefully and comply with Rule 341(h)(7) — unsupported argumentative claims risk being disregarded.