In re Marriage of Glod, 2020 IL App (1st) 192629-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Glod, No. 1-19-2629, 2020 IL App (1st) 192629-U (Ill. App. Ct. Oct. 28, 2020) (Rule 23 order — nonprecedential). Petitioner/Appellee: Jacek Glod. Respondent/Appellant: Marta Glod.

- Key legal issues
1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting Jacek’s petition to modify child support by finding a “substantial change in circumstances.”
2. Whether the court erred in denying Marta’s petitions for rule to show cause/indirect civil contempt based on alleged nonpayment of support, medical and school expenses.
3. Whether Jacek concealed income (via spouse’s trucking business) such that modification was improper.

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in modifying support (reduced to $672.48/month plus share of children’s insurance). The court properly denied Marta’s contempt petitions because Jacek’s nonpayment was not found “willful and contumacious.” (Order is nonprecedential under Rule 23.)

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Standard: modification requires proof of a substantial change in circumstances; trial court’s factual findings receive wide deference and are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Trial court credited Jacek’s testimony and documentation showing substantially lower earnings (approx. $800/week gross) than the previously imputed $8,000/month. The court concluded enforcement of historic arrears would be unworkable given his present ability to pay.
- The court acknowledged some findings in the prior dissolution judgment appeared incorrect but observed res judicata constraints; nonetheless it could evaluate current ability to pay.
- On contempt, the court required willfulness; evidence demonstrated inability to pay rather than deliberate refusal. Allegations that income was hidden via the wife’s ownership of the trucking company were not credited as proving willful concealment.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Modification: contemporaneous payroll records, credible testimony about current employment and cash flow, and demonstration of inability to meet prior obligations are critical. Trial courts have broad discretion; appellate reversal will be difficult absent clear abuse.
- Contempt: prove willfulness and contumacious conduct, not merely arrears. Financial inability can defeat contempt even with large statutory arrears.
- When alleged income is routed through a spouse-owned business, assemble direct evidence (payroll records, bank deposits, tax returns) to prove disguised income; otherwise courts may accept obligor’s testimony.
- Note: this is a Rule 23, nonprecedential decision — persuasive but not binding authority.