In re Marriage of Flynn, 2021 IL App (3d) 190649-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Flynn, 2021 IL App (3d) 190649-U (Ill. App. Ct., 3d Dist. May 18, 2021) (Sup. Ct. R. 23 order). Petitioner‑Appellant / Respondent‑Appellant: Rodney L. Flynn. Respondent‑Appellee / Petitioner‑Appellee: Celeste C. Flynn (now Celeste C. Berg).

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court properly set the weekly arrearage withholding amount (post‑termination) under the IMDMA and related orders.
2. Whether the husband was entitled to a “true‑up” reconciliation of child support paid versus owed under a July 2012 order that required production of tax returns for recalculation.
3. Whether alleged overpayments of child support (made via wage withholding) constituted gifts to the children or should be credited against the arrearage.

- Holding / outcome (concise)
The appellate court: affirmed the trial court’s order setting the weekly arrearage payment at $423.02; reversed the trial court’s refusal to conduct a true‑up; reversed the trial court’s finding that any overpayments were gifts; and remanded with directions to perform a true‑up and apply any overpayments to reduce the arrearage.

- Significant legal reasoning (essentials)
- Standards: child‑support/arrearage rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; statutory interpretation and legal effect of orders reviewed de novo.
- The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in setting the weekly withholding amount (the appellate opinion affirms the $423.02 figure based on the prior orders and the parties’ history of payments).
- However, the appellate court determined the trial court erred in denying a true‑up: the July 2012 order expressly contemplated recalculation based on actual income/tax returns and provided credits for overpayments or charges for underpayments. The appellate court held that reconciliation must be performed (and any prerequisite production of tax returns addressed consistent with the 2012 order).
- The characterization of overpayments as “gifts” was improper where payments were made through withholding and the 2012 order provided for reconciliation/credit; equitable and statutory principles support crediting overpayments against arrearage.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- When drafting settlement/judgment language, explicitly state true‑up procedures, required documentation (tax returns), timelines and consequences for nonproduction to avoid later disputes.
- Preserve and document all wage‑withholding transactions and present proof of payments; courts are likely to credit documented overpayments rather than deem them gifts.
- If seeking arrearage withholding, request both a clear withholding schedule and an express reconciliation mechanism.
- On appeal, distinguish discretionary support decisions (hard to overturn) from pure legal questions (de novo review) and preserve records evidencing payments and tax return requests.