In re Marriage of Ito
Court: Illinois Appellate Court | Published: 10/23/2025
Marriage
Quick Summary:
<h3><strong>Case</strong></h3>
<strong>In re Marriage of Nina Ito and Teruaki Ito</strong> — App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.; Order filed Oct. 23, 2025 (2025 IL App (3d) 240641 -U).
<h3><strong>Procedural Po...
Full Case Summary
Case
In re Marriage of Nina Ito and Teruaki Ito — App. Ct. Ill., 3d Dist.; Order filed Oct. 23, 2025 (2025 IL App (3d) 240641 -U).Procedural Posture
Appeal from the 18th Judicial Circuit, Du Page County (Circuit Nos. 21-D-1006 & 21-OP-1262). Nina filed a motion (Mar. 28, 2024) to increase child support; Teruaki moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615. The circuit court granted the 2-615 motion, denied reconsideration, and Nina appealed.Key Facts
- Parties: Nina and Teruaki; two children. - MSA inconsistently recited Wife’s income: Article II noted prior gross pay ≈ $92,500 and imputed income of $60,000 (based on anticipated disability); Article IV conflicted. Dissolution judgment entered Sept. 20, 2023. - At prove-up Nina testified she had earned about $92,000, was terminated July 14, 2023, and the $60,000 figure was an imputation. She had applied for SSD (pending) but was not then receiving disability. - In her modification motion Nina alleged a substantial change: she is unemployed, receives no disability, currently living on roughly $2,800/month unemployment, and is undergoing ongoing medical treatment requiring procedures/surgeries. Support in the MSA had been calculated using Husband’s stated gross base income of $72,000.Legal Standards
A 2-615 motion tests only the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and is reviewed de novo; the court must accept all well-pled facts and reasonable inferences and may not resolve merits or consider evidence outside the pleadings (see Jackson v. Michael Reese Hosp.; Urbaitis; Khan; Nyhammer). Change in the payee’s financial condition can justify modification of child support (see Pettifer).Analysis/Reasoning
The appellate court concluded the circuit court improperly relied on merits and factual matters (e.g., the MSA’s imputation and known disability application) when deciding the 2-615 motion. Because Nina alleged facts that, if proved, could support a modification based on a material change in her financial condition, dismissal under 2-615 was inappropriate.Holding & Disposition
The appellate court reversed and remanded, reinstating Nina’s complaint and returning the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Opinion by Justice Hettel; Justices Anderson and Bertani concurred.Notice
Filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 — may not be cited as precedent except as allowed by Rule 23(e)(1).Ask AI About This Case
Have a specific question about In re Marriage of Ito? Ask our AI assistant below.