In re Marriage of Hansen, 2022 IL App (1st) 210871-U

1. Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hansen, 2022 IL App (1st) 210871‑U (1st Dist. May 27, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential).
- Petitioner‑Appellant: Todd Hansen. Respondent‑Appellee: Kyle Hansen.

2. Key legal issues
- Interpretation and enforceability of marital settlement agreement (MSA) provisions allocating “unallocated family support” and the transition to child support (MSA §§4.1, 4.2, 4.6, 4.8, 4.11, 4.16).
- Whether the trial court properly offset maintenance reimbursement ordered upon termination of maintenance against alleged retroactive child support underpayments.
- Jurisdiction/appealability of post‑judgment attorney‑fee order (Rule 304(a)).
- Alleged judicial bias.

3. Holding/outcome
- Trial court’s resolution (after bench trial) that, after offsets, Kyle owed Todd $6,934 was affirmed.
- Appellant’s claim of judicial bias rejected.
- Appeal as to denial of Todd’s attorney‑fee petition was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the January 22, 2020 order denying fees contained no Rule 304(a) finding making it immediately appealable.

4. Significant legal reasoning
- The court construed the MSA: Section 4.16 required that, until a court or agreed order set child support, Todd pay 28% of his prior year net draw; Section 4.8 listed events (death, remarriage, cohabitation, or 84 payments) that terminated unallocated support. The court accepted the parties’ stipulations on K‑1/distribution figures and an accounting expert’s calculation.
- Applying the MSA and expert computations, the court offset maintenance reimbursement obligations against Todd’s child support underpayments and arrived at the $6,934 net owing to Todd for 2016–2019.
- The appellate court declined to treat Petersen (2011 IL 110984) as bar to enforcement here because Kyle sought enforcement of contractual MSA terms and the parties had litigated child support issues (Kyle filed enforcement; Todd filed petition to determine support).
- Jurisdictional principle: a post‑judgment fee order without an express Rule 304(a) finding is not appealable.

5. Practice implications for family law attorneys
- Draft MSAs with precise mechanics for (a) transition from “unallocated support” to child support, (b) trigger events, (c) exact percentage bases (gross vs. net; prior year vs. current), and (d) timing/process for “true‑ups” or offsets.
- Preserve appeal rights: include explicit Rule 304(a) language if a fee/order is intended to be immediately appealable.
- When enforcing MSA provisions, secure clear financial records (K‑1s, draws, distributions) and expert accounting; stipulations to income figures can be decisive.
- Consider prompt petitions to set child support when contractual triggers occur; retroactive enforcement and offsets under MSA provisions are viable and may be upheld.