In re Marriage of Hamm, 2022 IL App (2d) 220010-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hamm, 2022 IL App (2d) 220010‑U (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. Aug. 29, 2022). Petitioner‑Appellee: Jared W. Hamm. Respondent‑Appellant: Chelsey K. Lesniak.

- Key legal issues
1) How to calculate parental contributions to post‑majority college tuition under 750 ILCS 5/513 and the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) where the child attends a private out‑of‑state school.
2) Whether the trial court properly (a) capped parental liability at the University of Illinois at Urbana‑Champaign (UIUC) tuition and (b) subtracted the student’s subsidized loans, grants, and scholarships from that cap before splitting the balance 50/50 between parents.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. It agreed with the mother that the trial court misconstrued section 513 in the challenged aspects of its tuition award and sent the educational‑expense determination back for further proceedings. Other portions of the trial court’s order (e.g., room/board allocations not at issue on appeal) were left intact.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
The trial court had (1) used UIUC tuition as a cap on parental obligation and (2) subtracted the student’s subsidized loans, grants, and scholarships from that cap, then divided the remainder equally. The appellate court found that approach to be an incorrect application of section 513/MSA principles. Although the child’s resources (e.g., grants and scholarships) are relevant to calculating parental obligation, treating subsidized student loans as a “resource” to reduce parental responsibility (and mechanically capping liability at the cost of an in‑state public university) was a misinterpretation requiring reconsideration. The matter was remanded so the trial court can apply the statute and MSA correctly and make the necessary factual findings (e.g., reasonableness of school choice, the child’s actual resources, and each parent’s ability to pay) to calculate the award.

- Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Don’t assume courts will accept ad hoc caps based on in‑state tuition; be prepared to justify (or oppose) a cap with statutory or contractual authority and factual findings.
- Distinguish between a student’s non‑debt resources (scholarships/grants) and loans; courts may not treat loans as offsetting parental liability.
- When litigating or drafting MSAs, expressly define whether parental obligation is tied to a particular school/cap, how student grants/scholarships/loans affect parental obligations, and whether loans may be required.
- Obtain and present clear evidence on the reasonableness of school choice, itemized actual costs, the student’s available resources, and each parent’s financial ability to pay to avoid remandable legal error.