In re Marriage of Crecos, 2022 IL App (1st) 210160-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Crecos, 2022 IL App (1st) 210160-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 30, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Diana Lynn Barr Crecos. Respondent‑Appellant: Gregory Crecos.

2. Key legal issues
- What timeframe of evidence is admissible on the threshold issue of a “substantial change in circumstances” supporting a petition to modify child support?
- Whether an amended/supplemental petition filed years later may “relate back” to the original petition under 735 ILCS 5/2‑616(b) so as to permit consideration of later events.
- Whether 2016 amendments to the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act apply to recalculation here (district court held they did not).

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The trial court correctly limited the threshold proof of a substantial change to events occurring before the filing of Gregory’s July 29, 2010 petition; evidence of events occurring after that filing (including those asserted in a 2020 supplement) were properly excluded as irrelevant to the threshold issue. The court found Gregory failed to prove the alleged change and denied modification.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Modification is two‑step: (1) prove a substantial change in circumstances; (2) if proven, apply statutory factors to determine the new amount (citing In re Marriage of Izzo). The threshold inquiry is based on the allegations in the petition and must be supported by proof of the change alleged.
- Section 2‑616(b) relation‑back requires the original pleading to have given the other party fair notice of the subsequently alleged facts; the 2010 petition did not prepare Diana to defend against events arising years later (2015–2019). Thus the 2020 supplement did not relate back and could not be used to prove the 2010 petition’s threshold claim. McArthur cited for relation‑back principle.
- Court rejected the contention that later events could be used to defeat the threshold requirement; evidence of later developments might bear on the degree of modification only after the threshold is met. Trial court’s evidentiary limitation reviewed for legal error/de novo insofar as based on law.

5. Practice implications (concise)
- Plead and prove the specific period and facts constituting the claimed substantial change; produce contemporaneous financial records up to the filing date.
- If material new events occur after filing, consider filing a new petition (rather than a supplemental pleading) or ensure the original pleading gave opposing party adequate notice to preserve relation‑back.
- Use offers of proof when evidence is excluded to preserve appellate review, though clear pleadings/supplements may sometimes suffice.
- Be mindful amendments to the IMDMA may not apply retroactively; challenge/brief applicability early.