In re Marriage of Fowler, 2019 IL App (4th) 180710-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Fowler, 2019 IL App (4th) 180710‑U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 4, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Grant Fowler. Respondent‑Appellee: Stephanie Fowler.

2. Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion / rendered a decision against the manifest weight of the evidence by ordering child support payments (Grant → Stephanie) when Grant had primary custody and Stephanie had only limited, supervised visitation.
- Whether the trial court properly found Grant in indirect civil contempt for failing to make mortgage payments on the marital home and ordered a purge amount, when the foreclosure/deed‑in‑lieu process had removed the parties’ liability.

3. Holding / outcome
- The appellate court reversed in part: (1) the child support order requiring Grant to pay Stephanie $300/month was against the manifest weight of the evidence and reversed; and (2) the contempt finding and purge order (Grant ordered to pay $10,848 to purge) were vacated because the court had no valid basis to enforce the mortgage‑payment order after foreclosure/deed‑in‑lieu relief eliminated the debt and there was no meaningful purge available.

4. Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Child support: The record showed Grant had majority parenting time and sole parental decision‑making; Stephanie was limited to supervised visits every other Sunday (4 hours). The appellate court found the trial court’s support order inconsistent with the custodial realities on the record and therefore against the manifest weight of the evidence. The court declined to reallocate support based on an unsupported equivalence between mortgage payments and child support absent briefing or factual findings equating dissipation of marital assets to an increase in statutory support obligations.
- Contempt: Indirect civil contempt requires a presently enforceable order and the contemnor’s ability (or ability to purge) to comply. Here, foreclosure proceedings had been dismissed following a deed‑in‑lieu resolution; the record reflected the parties had relinquished rights and Wells Fargo released personal liability, leaving no mortgage obligation for Grant to perform. The court therefore lacked a factual/legal basis to hold him in contempt or to prescribe a purge he could effectuate.

5. Practice implications for family law practitioners
- When seeking child‑support modifications or awards that depart from statutory presumptions, develop clear factual findings tying custody/parenting time and incomes to the support determination; be cautious about treating mortgage payments as equivalent to child support or unsupportively converting dissipation into ongoing support without briefing.
- Before pursuing contempt for failure to pay mortgage or debt obligations, confirm current status of foreclosure/deficiency claims and whether the party retains any enforceable obligation; courts will not sustain contempt where the subject debt has been extinguished or the contemnor lacks a realistic ability to purge.
- Preserve a record on ability to comply and on the precise custodial/parenting‑time facts—critical for appellate review under manifest‑weight and contempt standards.