In re Marriage of Green, 2019 IL App (4th) 190088-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Green, No. 4-19-0088, 2019 IL App (4th) 190088-U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Sept. 4, 2019) (Rule 23 order — non‑precedential).
- Petitioner-Appellee: Kathleen E. Green. Respondent-Appellant: Christopher Green.

2. Key legal issues
- How to calculate the health‑insurance component of a child‑support award under 750 ILCS 5/505(a)(4)(D)–(E).
- Whether the trial court must divide the total premium by the number of persons covered when the actual premium "attributable to the child" is available and verifiable.
- Application of statutory credit/deduction rules when the obligor pays the premium.

3. Holding/outcome
- The Fourth District reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in its child‑support calculation related to health‑insurance costs. The court concluded the trial court misapplied section 505(a)(4)(D) and (E) when it divided the family premium among persons covered rather than using the actual attributable amount (which was available and did not vary with the number covered). The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with that interpretation.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- Statutory interpretation reviewed de novo. Section 505(a)(4)(D) directs that the amount added to basic support "shall be the actual amount of the total health insurance premium that is attributable to the child" and only if that amount "is not available or cannot be verified" should the court divide the total premium by the number of persons covered.
- Parties agreed the family premium ($867.49/month) was verifiable and would be the same whether one or four persons were covered. Under the statute the court therefore should have used the actual (verifiable) amount attributable to the child rather than the per‑person division.
- Section 505(a)(4)(E) then governs credit/deduction: if the obligor pays the premium, the obligee's share is deducted from the obligor's support obligation. The court relied also on In re Aaliyah L.H., 2013 IL App (2d) 120414, for the proposition that a premium deduction may be allowed even if the premium does not increase when the child is added.
- The court noted appellee did not file a brief but proceeded because the record and issues were straightforward.

5. Practice implications
- Carefully document who pays premiums, the exact dollar premium, and whether the premium varies with the number covered. If the premium attributable to the child is verifiable, do not default to a per‑person division.
- When obligor pays the premium, ensure the trial court applies §505(a)(4)(E) to deduct the obligee’s share from the obligor’s obligation.
- Preserve statutory‑interpretation arguments and submit authority (e.g., Aaliyah L.H.) showing that a flat family premium can still support a deduction/credit.
- Remember this decision is a Rule 23 (nonprecedential) disposition — persuasive but not binding precedent.