In re Marriage of Hampton, 2022 IL App (4th) 210528-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hampton, 2022 IL App (4th) 210528-U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. Aug. 25, 2022). Petitioner: Dusty Hampton. Respondent/Appellee: Bradley Hampton. Intervenor/Appellant: Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services (the Department).

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the Department could require continuation of child support beyond the termination date specified in a 2012 support order when that termination date (the youngest child’s 18th birthday) likely preceded the child’s expected high‑school graduation (potentially in 2021), in contravention of 750 ILCS 5/505(g).
2) Whether the trial court could correct the termination date nunc pro tunc or otherwise order continuation absent a direct appeal or statutory modification procedure (e.g., under §§ 510 or 513).

- Holding/outcome
The appellate court affirmed the Greene County circuit court’s denial of the Department’s petition to continue child support. A support order entered by a court of competent jurisdiction cannot be collaterally attacked; nor could the termination date be altered nunc pro tunc because the record lacked contemporaneous evidence that the court intended a different date.

- Significant legal reasoning
The court applied Mitchell (In re Marriage of Mitchell, 181 Ill. 2d 169) to hold that errors in a final child‑support order are not subject to collateral attack long after entry; relief must be sought by direct appeal or through the statutory modification procedures. The Department’s attempt to relabel its claim as a nunc pro tunc correction failed because such relief requires a contemporaneous memorandum or court record showing the court’s original intent (Hirsch/Pestka principles). The record contained no writing identifying the actual graduation date or indicating the judge intended a later termination date; indeed the Department itself could not identify the date. The court also agreed with the trial court’s reliance on In re Marriage of Waller that continuation past an express termination date is a modification implicating § 510 (change in circumstances) or, for non‑minor educational support, § 513.

- Practice implications (concise)
- Final support orders are strictly final unless timely appealed or modified under the statute; parties (and enforcement agencies) must timely challenge errors.
- Agencies drafting consent or fill‑in orders must ensure statutory compliance (750 ILCS 5/505(g)) and not insert premature termination dates.
- If a court intends a different termination date than appears on the face of an order, create contemporaneous written minutes/memoranda to permit nunc pro tunc correction.
- To extend support for a post‑majority child, proceed under § 510 (modification) or § 513 (educational expenses) with appropriate factual allegations.
- Blaming drafting errors after finality is unlikely to overcome the collateral‑attack and nunc pro tunc standards.