In re Marriage of Dodd, 2021 IL App (2d) 200443-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Dodd, 2021 IL App (2d) 200443‑U (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Dec. 20, 2021) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Laura Dodd. Respondent‑Appellant: Steven Dodd.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court properly imputed income to the father and, if so, the appropriate amount.
- Whether the trial court correctly calculated child support for 2018 (including whether certain receipts should count as income under the marital settlement agreement (MSA)).
- Whether the appellate court had jurisdiction to review a subsequent trial court attorney‑fee order.
- Whether the trial court’s rulings about health‑insurance premium responsibilities were correct or need remand.

3. Holding/outcome (short)
- The appellate court had jurisdiction to review the July 6, 2020 order resolving the modification and rule proceedings, but not the November 9, 2020 order awarding attorney fees.
- The imputation of $100,000 annual income to Steven was within the trial court’s discretion and is affirmed.
- The trial court erred in its 2018 child‑support calculation (requiring vacatur of that portion and remand for recalculation).
- Health‑insurance premium issues to be addressed on remand.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Jurisdiction: The court distinguished final/appealable orders from later, separate fee awards entered after the appeal was docketed; it concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the later attorney‑fee order.
- Income imputation: The appellate court reiterated that a trial court may impute income where a parent is unemployed/underemployed and not diligently pursuing available work. The imputation must be supported by record evidence (past earnings, qualifications, job market, job‑search activity, lifestyle/asset indicators, and expert testimony). Here the record (prior earnings, industry experience, limited/insufficient job‑search proof, lifestyle and asset evidence, and recruiter testimony) provided a permissible basis to impute $100,000.
- 2018 support calculation: The trial court’s methodology for 2018 support was flawed because it treated certain receipts (related to a condo sale/other items) and the MSA’s enforcement/formula in a way the appellate court could not sustain. Because the MSA’s payment mechanism and historical payments complicated the computation, the matter must be recalculated consistent with statutory support rules and the parties’ agreement as interpreted on remand.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- Draft MSAs with precise income definitions (salary vs. capital proceeds, commissions, bonuses) and clear reporting/verification mechanisms to avoid re‑litigation.
- When defending or challenging imputation, develop or counter concrete evidence: historic earnings, job‑search logs, recruiter testimony, and documentation of asset dispositions and lifestyle.
- Be mindful of timing: appeals may not reach later post‑appeal fee orders; preserve challenges to fee awards promptly and ensure fee judgments are entered in an appealable fashion.
- On remand expect careful recalculation of support; preserve objections to inclusion of asset‑sale proceeds as income.