In re Marriage of Hartman, 2019 IL App (2d) 190200-U

In re Marriage of Hartman, 2019 IL App (2d) 190200‑U

1) Case citation and parties
- In re Marriage of Hartman, No. 2‑19‑0200 (Ill. App. Ct., 2d Dist., Order filed Dec. 11, 2019) (Rule 23 order).
- Petitioner‑Appellee: Kandra (Kendra) Hartman. Respondent‑Appellant: Timothy Hartman.

2) Key legal issues
- Whether the trial court’s retroactive child‑support award (daily rate of $37.40 from Sept. 19, 2017 to the child’s high‑school graduation) was properly calculated and supported by the evidence/§505(a)(1.5) (income‑shares).
- Whether Timothy should receive credit for past‑due child support owed by Kandra.
- Whether the trial court misapplied §513 (college/educational expense allocation) by ordering Timothy to pay half of the child’s college costs.
- Whether §513 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act is unconstitutional.

3) Holding / outcome
- The appellate court found prima facie error in the trial court’s child‑support award and vacated/remanded that portion for recalculation.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s award of educational expenses (Timothy ordered to pay half of the net college cost after scholarships and an estimated student contribution).
- The appellate court upheld the trial court’s denial of Timothy’s constitutional challenge to §513.

4) Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Procedural posture: Kandra did not file an appellee brief; the court applied Talandis/First Capitol principles and required a prima facie showing of error by the appellant.
- Child support: The court emphasized that, after statutory amendment, child support must be computed under §505(a)(1.5) (income‑shares method: determine each parent’s net monthly income, combined income, pick amount from schedule and apportion). The trial court’s daily‑rate award lacked an adequate evidentiary basis and explicit statutory computation; therefore it constituted prima facie error requiring vacatur/remand for proper calculation and factual support.
- Educational expenses: The trial court correctly reduced the total college cost by scholarships/grants and an estimated student contribution, then apportioned the remainder under §513 — the appellate court found no abuse of discretion.
- Constitutionality: The court rejected Timothy’s constitutional attack on §513.

5) Practice implications
- When seeking or defending modifications, strictly apply §505(a)(1.5)’s income‑shares steps on the record: show net incomes, combined income, schedule lookup, and each parent’s percentage. Absent that, appellate courts will vacate/support remand.
- For retroactivity claims, tie requested dates and calculations to concrete evidence (employment dates, pay records, SDU receipts) and argue substantial change of circumstances.
- For college‑expense claims under §513, produce itemized school costs, scholarship documentation, and a realistic student contribution estimate; clearly show the arithmetic reduction before apportionment.
- Preserve and brief constitutional challenges carefully; appellate courts are unlikely to disturb well‑established statutory allocation schemes without a substantial record.