In re Marriage of Elliott, 2019 IL App (4th) 180628

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Elliott, 2019 IL App (4th) 180628.
- Petitioner-Appellant: Danielle R. Elliott. Respondent-Appellee: Neil Patrick Elliott.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying petitioner’s request to increase child support (i.e., whether a “substantial change in circumstances” warranted modification, and whether respondent’s new spouse’s income could be considered).
- Whether the trial court erred by refusing to find respondent in indirect civil contempt for unpaid support and by declining to calculate an arrearage absent a certified State Disbursement Unit (SDU) accounting.

3) Holding/outcome
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to increase child support (no substantial change shown and stepparent income not imputed).
- The court reversed the trial court’s handling of the arrearage/contempt issue and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion (i.e., the requirement that the SDU produce a certified accounting before calculating arrearage or considering contempt was erroneous under the facts).

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Modification: The Fourth District deferred to the trial court’s factual findings on income and credits, noting petitioner did not prove a substantial change in circumstances sufficient to modify support. The trial court reasonably relied on tax returns, financial affidavits, and the child-support calculation under the post–July 1, 2017 statutory scheme. The court also rejected imputing respondent’s new spouse’s income to him.
- Arrearage/Contempt: The appellate court held the trial court erred in effectively requiring a certified SDU accounting before resolving the arrearage/contempt petition where petitioner had submitted SDU payment histories and other admissible evidence (and respondent had made concessions as to arrearage). The court stressed that trial courts may find arrearages and consider contempt based on competent, admissible records (including SDU records and admissions), and should not impose an inflexible rule demanding a certified SDU printout where other reliable proof exists. The matter was remanded to calculate arrearage and reconsider contempt/willfulness with appropriate evidentiary opportunity.

5) Practice implications (short)
- Preserve and authenticate SDU/payment-history records; use requests to admit and retain copies of employer withholding/earnings information.
- When pursuing contempt for unpaid support, present unambiguous payment histories and admissions of nonpayment; do not assume the court will require a formal SDU certification if other reliable records are available.
- For modification petitions, be prepared to prove a substantial change in circumstances with contemporaneous financial affidavits and income documentation; courts are reluctant to impute a new spouse’s income to the obligor.
- Expect remand if the trial court declines to make an arrearage calculation despite substantial documentary evidence.