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

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Durdov, 2021 IL App (1st) 191811.
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Veronica L. Durdov. Respondent‑Appellee: Eric A. Durdov.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether respondent proved a “substantial change in circumstances” since entry of the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) and judgment of dissolution so as to warrant modification of his child support obligation.
- The effect of the MSA’s income imputations and express modification/limitation clauses on post‑judgment child support modifications (including interplay with the 2017 statutory rewrite of the child‑support guidelines).

3) Holding/outcome
- Appellate court (1st Dist., Second Div.) reversed the trial court’s order modifying respondent’s child support obligation. The appellate court held respondent failed to establish the necessary substantial change in circumstances.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- The MSA had expressly calculated child support as 28% of respondent’s net income based on his then‑salary (~$211,000) and imputed specified incomes for petitioner when calculating maintenance. The parties also negotiated detailed clauses addressing modification events and how child support would be adjusted (including an agreement about maintenance and limits on modification in certain circumstances).
- After the divorce petitioner’s employment and earnings rose from nominal substitute‑teacher income (~$1,500 in 2016) to a full‑time salary (~$53,000–$58,000). Respondent’s own post‑divorce compensation also increased (new job, bonus, higher salary). The trial court found this warranted a reduction in respondent’s child support under the new statutory guidelines.
- The appellate court concluded respondent did not prove a substantial change because petitioner’s post‑divorce earnings were within the range the MSA contemplated (the MSA had imputed income assumptions and allocation mechanisms), and the modification petition appeared driven primarily by respondent’s attempt to take advantage of a change in the statutory guidelines rather than by an unforeseen changed circumstance. The court emphasized enforcement of the parties’ negotiated agreement and the requirement that a true, substantial change in circumstances be shown before judicially adjusting child support.

5) Practice implications
- Draft settlement agreements to state clearly which income assumptions were relied upon, whether child support is modifiable, and how guideline changes or changed incomes will be treated. Include explicit waivers/limitations if the parties intend to lock in support levels.
- When seeking modification, focus proofs on unforeseeable, material changes in circumstances (not merely post‑judgment incomes consistent with MSA assumptions or litigation strategies to exploit statutory changes).
- When defending a modification, emphasize the parties’ contractual allocation, imputed incomes, and the parties’ bargaining expectations reflected in the MSA.