In re Marriage of Griffith, 2020 IL App (5th) 200032-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Griffith, 2020 IL App (5th) 200032-U (Ill. App. Ct., 5th Dist., filed Nov. 12, 2020) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellant: Jennifer R. Griffith. Respondent‑Appellee: Jason M. Griffith. Appeal from Shelby County (No. 16‑D‑1; Judge Amanda S. Ade‑Harlow).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding a "substantial change in circumstances" warranting modification of maintenance and child support where the payor was involuntarily terminated and his post‑termination earnings substantially declined.
2) Whether the court erred in declining to impute income to the payor based on alleged misconduct (use of company fuel card) or based on his earning capacity.

- Holding / outcome
Judgment affirmed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s modification order reducing support obligations given the appellee’s involuntary termination and reduced income; the trial court properly declined to impute income.

- Significant legal reasoning (summary)
The court applied the familiar abuse‑of‑discretion standard for modification decisions. The trial court found a substantial change in circumstances: the appellee’s annual income dropped from roughly $92K (at dissolution) to about $39–40K after termination. The trial court declined to impute income because evidence showed the appellee’s termination was not motivated by an intent to avoid support obligations: he offered credible testimony that (a) the alleged fuel‑card use was common practice in the field office and not clearly covered by the corporate travel/entertainment policy; (b) he immediately attempted to repay the funds and sought new work (applying widely and promptly securing a sales position); and (c) his prior payment history was consistent and reliable. The court also noted gaps in the petitioner’s proof (e.g., inability to document claimed expenses and unexplained deposits from a boyfriend), undermining her arguments that the payor’s support should be restored to former levels. The appellate court concluded the trial court did not err in weighing credibility, mitigation efforts, or in refusing to impute income absent proof of underemployment or bad faith.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- To resist imputation, develop contemporaneous evidence of involuntary termination, company policies, mitigation (job‑search logs, applications, new employment offers) and prompt attempts to remedy any alleged misconduct.
- To obtain imputation, aggressively document that termination was pretextual or that the payor is capable of earning prior income (job availability, qualifications) and show bad faith/intent to avoid support.
- Produce complete financial records (bank statements, proofs of bills) and document any third‑party financial contributions or cohabitation — failure undermines credibility.
- Remember Rule 23 status: this opinion is non‑precedential and cite‑limited.