In re Marriage of Goldin, 2019 IL App (1st) 180788-U

1) Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Goldin, 2019 IL App (1st) 180788‑U (1st Dist. June 28, 2019) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Jacqueline M. Goldin. Respondent‑Appellant: Neil M. Morganstein.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court erred in denying husband’s petition to modify the dissolution judgment to eliminate or reduce his obligation to pay the parties’ child’s health‑insurance premiums.
- Whether the court properly found husband in indirect civil contempt for failing to pay those premiums and ordered remedial sanctions.
- Whether the award of attorney fees to wife stemming from the contempt proceeding was proper.
- Procedural: effect of a 2016 interim order reallocating the duty to select insurance, the relevance of a 2017 statutory amendment (IMDMA) concerning Medicaid, and sanctions for discovery noncompliance under local Rule 13.3.1(b).

3) Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the trial court in all respects: (a) denial of husband’s modification petition; (b) contempt finding and monetary sanction for unpaid premiums; and (c) award of $6,837.50 in attorney fees to wife. (Rule 23 — not to be cited as precedent except as allowed.)

4) Significant legal reasoning
- Modification: The dissolution judgment expressly required husband to “maintain … insurance” for the child. The court concluded husband failed to show a change in circumstances that would warrant relieving that obligation; the parental support obligation was tied to the child’s reasonable needs and therefore remained. The trial court’s January 2016 interim order simply transferred the duty to select the policy to the mother while preserving husband’s payment obligation; subsequent statutory amendment and husband’s Medicaid status did not automatically extinguish his contractual/judicial duty.
- Contempt: Husband’s nonpayment of premiums in violation of the dissolution judgment and subsequent court orders supported an indirect civil contempt finding; the court imposed a purge amount and ongoing monthly payment to avoid incarceration.
- Fees and sanctions: Because husband failed to comply with discovery/local rules, the trial court excluded his evidence on contribution and dismissed contribution claims with prejudice; the court also found wife entitled to attorneys’ fees under 750 ILCS 5/508(b) where noncompliance lacked justification.

5) Practice implications
- Preserve the record: absence of hearing transcripts complicates appellate review.
- Compliance is critical: timely disclosure and compliance with local rules (e.g., financial affidavits) can be determinative; noncompliance risks exclusion of evidence and dismissal.
- Careful drafting: dissolution provisions requiring a parent to “maintain” insurance can survive changes in that parent’s coverage/status or statutory amendments unless the court modifies the order. Seek express reallocation or termination language if intending to eliminate such duties.
- Contempt/fees remain potent tools for enforcing insurance‑premium obligations; courts may award arrears, ongoing payments, and counsel fees where violations are unjustified.