In re Marriage of Hayes, 2020 IL App (2d) 191144-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Hayes, No. 2-19-1144, 2020 IL App (2d) 191144-U (Ill. App. Ct. Nov. 25, 2020) (Rule 23 order). Petitioner-Appellee: Jessica Hayes; Respondent-Appellant: Mohammed El Sayad.

- Key legal issues
1) How to calculate "additional child support" on bonus income under the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) and the court’s March 3, 2015 order — whether based on the net bonus alone (Ackerley approach) or using increases in total net income.
2) Whether the trial court’s prior, unreversed order and its attendant calculations control as law of the case.
3) Contempt for failure to pay additional support timely.

- Holding/outcome
The Second District affirmed. The appellate court held the trial court properly construed the March 3, 2015 order and the MSA to require calculation of additional child support using increases in Mohammed’s net income (as reflected in the court’s computations), not solely the net bonus. The trial court’s judgment requiring Mohammed to pay $8,459 in additional support plus $2,296 interest (and other findings) was affirmed.

- Significant legal reasoning
- The JDOM incorporated the MSA and must be construed as a contract; where unambiguous, the instrument controls.
- The March 3, 2015 bench ruling and written order (including the handwritten “Cerne paper” with the court’s calculations) established the calculation method and were not reversed or modified on appeal — making them the law of the case. The appellate court deferred to that prior order and the trial judge’s interpretation.
- The appellant’s reliance on In re Marriage of Ackerley (calculating support by isolating a bonus, deducting tax attributable to the bonus, then applying the support percentage) was rejected as inconsistent with the parties’ MSA and the earlier court order that had used total net income increases in its arithmetic.
- The trial court was permitted to take judicial notice of its earlier computations and to enforce the MSA consistent with that prior ruling.

- Practice implications for attorneys
- Draft MSAs with explicit formulae for bonus treatment (gross vs. net, tax treatment, inclusion/exclusion of base-salary increases, stock/RSUs, PTO), and specify calculation/examples and timing for payments and document production.
- If a judge sets a calculation method (especially via written notes/handwritten corrections), promptly clarify/appeal — an unreversed order can become law of the case.
- Preserve evidence and objections to computational exhibits (pay stubs, court worksheets); timely produce/contest tax-withholding treatment.
- Enforce 10‑day payment deadlines in agreements (failure can prompt contempt and interest); negotiate clearer compliance and cure provisions.