In re Marriage of Doran, 2019 IL App (1st) 180904-U

In re Marriage of Doran, No. 1-18-0904 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 26, 2019) (Rule 23 order)

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Doran, 2019 IL App (1st) 180904-U (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., June 26, 2019) (Rule 23 — nonprecedential).
- Petitioner-Appellant: Kathrin Doran. Respondent-Appellee: Michael S. Doran.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court correctly: (a) calculated respondent’s child support arrearage and set retroactivity to August 1, 2017; (b) imputed income to petitioner (wife) but not to respondent (husband) when modifying support under 750 ILCS 5/505; and (c) allocated annual overnights (79.45% to wife, 20.55% to husband) for the guideline child support calculation.

3. Holding/outcome
- Affirmed. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s February 2, 2018 order (and denial of post‑judgment motions): modified child support set at $1,088/month; retroactive arrearage awarded to petitioner in the amount of $2,225.94 (retroactive to Aug. 1, 2017); imputation of income to wife ($45,276) was upheld; no imputation to husband for his inactive real‑estate business; overnight allocation (79.45%/20.55%) was upheld.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Standard of review: child support modification is reviewed for abuse of discretion; statutory interpretation is de novo.
- Imputation: trial court found wife voluntarily underemployed and properly applied 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3.2) factors (work history, qualifications, job opportunities, non‑income producing assets) to impute potential income ($45,276). Husband’s MWRD (City water) wages ($75,294) and allowable adjustments (pension, insurance) supported the guideline calculation; his claimed real‑estate business was found inactive and not a basis to impute additional income.
- Arrearage calculation: court correctly converted biweekly obligation into annual payments (26 biweekly payments) to compute prior obligation and the retroactive difference.
- Record deficiency: no transcript or exhibits were included on appeal. Under the well‑established rule, appellate court presumed the missing record supported the trial court’s findings, negating reversal absent an abuse of discretion.

5. Practice implications
- Preserve and include transcripts/exhibits: failure to provide the record on appeal will likely result in affirmance under the presumption that the omitted record supports the trial court.
- Prove or refute imputed income with concrete evidence of employment history, earning capacity, prevailing opportunities, and active/inactive business operations; bare assertions of inactivity or low hours are insufficient.
- When a court orders retroactivity, be prepared for precise arrearage math (convert biweekly payments properly).
- Rule 23 status: this decision is nonprecedential — useful persuasive guidance but not binding authority.