In re Marriage of Durdov, 2021 IL App (1st) 191811-U

In re Marriage of Durdov, 2021 IL App (1st) 191811‑U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Durdov, No. 1‑19‑1811 (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Div., June 8, 2021) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner/Appellant: Veronica L. Durdov. Respondent/Appellee: Eric A. Durdov.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether a post‑dissolution increase in the custodial parent’s income (and a contemporaneous increase in the noncustodial parent’s income) constituted a “substantial change in circumstances” justifying modification of the noncustodial parent’s child support obligation.
- How parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) language and pre‑divorce imputation/expectations affect modification analysis, including interplay with 2017 statutory changes to child‑support guidelines (move to income‑shares).

3. Holding/outcome
- Reversed. The appellate court held the trial court erred in modifying Eric’s child support obligation; the increases in both parties’ incomes were contemplated by the parties at the time of the divorce and therefore did not constitute a substantial change in circumstances warranting modification.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The MSA expressly contemplated Veronica’s post‑divorce career counseling and imputed incomes for maintenance calculations (e.g., $20,000 imputed initially, $65,000 in year five). The child‑support clause tied Eric’s obligation to a percentage of his net income (28% under then‑existing guidelines) and included provisions addressing adjustments on certain “modifying events.”
- The court emphasized the parties’ negotiated expectations: Veronica’s move to full‑time work and higher earnings were foreseeable and addressed in the settlement, so her increased earnings were not an unforeseen, substantial change. The record also showed Eric’s income increased (new job, $20,000 signing bonus and higher salary), further undermining the characterization of an adverse change warranting reduction.
- Attempting to rely on the 2017 statutory shift to income‑shares guidelines did not overcome the MSA’s allocation of risk and the parties’ anticipatory provisions.

5. Practice implications
- Draft settlement agreements with clear, express language about how post‑dissolution changes in income, bonuses, promotions, and changes in law will affect child support and maintenance (e.g., specific imputation rules, whether increases were anticipated, waiver/limitation of modification rights).
- When seeking or opposing modification, evaluate whether the disputed change was contemplated or bargained for; a court is likely to deny modification where the MSA specifically accounted for the future event.
- Be mindful of litigation strategy around legislative guideline changes — courts will give effect to contractual allocations made at divorce and may reject attempts to “game” a statutory change.
- Note: this is a Rule 23, non‑precedential decision; cite with Rule 23(e)(1) caution.