In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2020 IL App (5th) 200099

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dahm-Schell, 2020 IL App (5th) 200099 (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., Nov. 30, 2020).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Sandra D. Dahm‑Schell. Respondent‑Appellee: Mark R. Schell.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether mandatory distributions or withdrawals from an inherited IRA that contains only inherited funds (and which were not previously imputed as income) constitute “income” for purposes of child support and maintenance under the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/504(b‑3), 5/505(a)(3) (West 2018)).
- Whether the certified question should be limited to the case facts to materially advance the litigation.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Fifth District answered the narrowed, fact‑specific question in the affirmative: mandatory distributions/withdrawals from an inherited IRA (containing only inherited funds and not previously imputed as income) are includable in “gross income”/“net income” for child support and maintenance calculations under the Act.
- The circuit court’s order (Sept. 5, 2018) excluding those distributions was vacated and the cause remanded to recalculate child support and maintenance including the inherited IRA distributions.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court relied on the Act’s broad definition of “gross income” as “all income from all sources” (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3)) and on Illinois precedent construing “income” broadly (In re Marriage of Rogers; Mayfield; Verhines). Income includes gains/benefits that enhance a parent’s wealth and ability to support children.
- The panel limited its answer to the precise factual posture: (a) IRA contained only inherited funds, and (b) the inheritance had not previously been imputed as income. Under those circumstances, mandatory required minimum distributions (RMDs) are periodic economic benefits and therefore income even if the principal is nonmarital and even if the recipient immediately transfers distributions into another (claimed nonmarital) account.
- The court emphasized judicial‑economy and Rule 308 (interlocutory certification) limits — it reframed the certified question to materially advance the litigation and confined holdings to the factual scenario.

5. Practice implications
- Practitioners should treat mandatory distributions (RMDs) from inherited IRAs as includable income for support calculations unless facts fall outside this decision (e.g., inheritance already imputed as income or other distinguishing facts).
- In support/modification actions, counsel should document the source of retirement account funds (inherited vs marital), prior imputations, amounts and frequency of distributions, and transfers out of distributions; present tax effects and liquidity arguments if opposing inclusion.
- Litigators seeking interlocutory review under Rule 308 should expect appellate limitation of certified questions to what will materially advance the case; be prepared to frame narrow, fact‑specific questions.