Illinois Appellate Court

In re Marriage of Ito, 2025 IL App (3d) 240641-U

2-615 Dismissal Improper for Support Modification Claims

October 23, 2025
Child Support
Quick Answer

Trial court erred in dismissing child support modification motion under section 2-615. Courts must accept well-pled facts as true and cannot decide merits on motion to dismiss. Allegations of unemployment and reduced income after imputed income determination state valid basis for modification.

Citation: N/A Court: Illinois Appellate Court Date: October 23, 2025

Facts

Nina Ito sought increased child support from Teruaki Ito, alleging she was unemployed with substantially reduced income despite the marital settlement agreement imputing $60,000 annual income to her. The trial court granted Teruaki's section 2-615 motion to dismiss Nina's modification request.

Issue

Whether the trial court properly dismissed a child support modification motion when the petitioner alleged substantial reduction in income after the MSA had imputed income to her.

Holding

The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in granting the 2-615 dismissal. Nina's allegations of unemployment and reduced income, if proven, could constitute substantial change in financial condition warranting modification despite the MSA's imputed income provision.

Key Reasoning

  • Section 2-615 motions test only legal sufficiency of pleadings, not substantive merits
  • Courts must accept well-pled facts and reasonable inferences as true on motion to dismiss
  • Allegations of unemployment and materially reduced income state prima facie basis for modification under Pettifer standard
  • Dismissal appropriate only if no set of facts consistent with pleadings would entitle movant to relief

Practical Impact

For Petitioners

Plead specific factual allegations about income changes, dates of unemployment, disability status, and current financial condition to survive dismissal motions

For Respondents

Use section 2-619 motions with documentary evidence rather than 2-615 when relying on clear contractual bars to modification

When This Applies

Applies when MSA language is contradictory or ambiguous about imputed income; may not apply if MSA clearly bars modification regardless of income changes

Statutes Cited

Citation Network

This Case Cites

  • In re Marriage of Pettifer
  • Patrick Eng'g
  • Jane Doe-3
  • Khan
  • Nyhammer
Full Opinion Download the official PDF

Facing a Similar Legal Issue?

Appellate decisions shape family law strategy. Ensure your approach aligns with the latest precedents.

Schedule a Strategy Session

Legal Assistant

Ask specific questions about this case's holding.

Disclaimer: This AI analysis is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify any AI-generated content against the official court opinion.
Call Book