In re Marriage of Crawford, 2019 IL App (1st) 180931-U

In re Marriage of Crawford, No. 1‑18‑0931, 2019 IL App (1st) 180931‑U (Ill. App. Ct. May 24, 2019) (Rule 23 — non‑precedential)

Parties
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Timothy T. Crawford
- Respondent‑Appellee: Julie Crawford

Key legal issues
- Whether a former husband’s involuntary termination and substantially reduced earnings constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” warranting modification of an unallocated support obligation under 750 ILCS 5/510(a)(1).
- Whether the trial court properly found the husband in indirect civil contempt for failure to pay unallocated support (i.e., whether nonpayment was willful and contemptuous given his ability to pay).
- Evidentiary and credibility determinations bearing on both the modification and contempt rulings.

Holding / Outcome
- The appellate court reversed the trial court’s denial of Timothy’s petition to modify the unallocated support obligation, concluding the trial court’s finding that no substantial change in circumstances had been proven was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The appellate court vacated the trial court’s finding of indirect civil contempt.
- The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (procedural posture under Rule 23).

Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The MSA set unallocated support based on assumed gross earnings ($250,000 for husband). After termination from Societe Generale, Timothy’s documented earnings dropped significantly and he pursued consulting, short‑term and lower‑pay work, unemployment benefits, and later a substantially lower salaried position. The appellate court found this evidence — including unemployment compensation, consulting receipts, job‑search efforts and later employment at a markedly reduced salary — supported a substantial change in circumstances as contemplated by section 510(a)(1).
- The trial court’s conclusion rested heavily on credibility findings and lifestyle observations (golfing, travel, discretionary spending) and speculative assertions that assets were concealed. The appellate court determined those credibility inferences and speculation were not supported by the evidentiary record to the extent necessary to deny modification.
- With respect to contempt, because the record did not adequately support willful refusal to pay (and the husband had financial limitations, loans from family, and some payments made), the contempt finding could not stand.

Practice implications
- For practitioners seeking modification: develop contemporaneous, admissible documentation of termination, severance (or lack thereof), unemployment benefits, consulting income, pay stubs/W‑2s, and detailed job‑search logs (job diaries). Preserve signed employment contracts and timely move to admit pay records before discovery closes.
- For defending/contesting contempt: litigate and document ability (or inability) to pay; show job‑search diligence; distinguish discretionary spending from access to undisclosed assets before contempt is sought. Courts should not rely on lifestyle observations alone to infer hidden resources.
- Remember the opinion is Rule 23 non‑precedential; nonetheless it underscores appellate willingness to overturn trial rulings when the record demonstrates significant income reduction and insufficient proof of willful nonpayment.