In re Marriage of Javadi, 2022 IL App (4th) 210735-U

- Case citation and parties
In re Marriage of Javadi, 2022 IL App (4th) 210735-U (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. June 16, 2022) (Rule 23 order; non‑precedential). Petitioner‑Appellee: Elahe Javadi. Respondent‑Appellant: Amir Marmarchi.

- Key legal issues
1) Whether the trial court erred by refusing to revisit its parenting plan order at a later hearing on financial issues.
2) Whether the trial court’s maintenance award and the directive that petitioner’s maintenance payments be applied to mortgage payments on the former marital residence were unauthorized or an abuse of discretion.
3) Whether the defendant’s claimed denial of allocution in a contempt proceeding requires reversal.

- Holding / outcome
The appellate court affirmed. The trial court did not err in declining to reopen parenting issues at the financial hearing; the maintenance award (including imputed income, offsetting child support, and crediting mortgage payments against maintenance) was authorized and not an abuse of discretion; and the contempt matter was not reviewable because no contempt sanction was imposed.

- Significant legal reasoning (concise)
- Parenting: The court properly treated parenting‑time modification as a separate motion/hearing matter. Although the trial court orally indicated it would “track” parenting review with financial matters, the court’s refusal at the financial hearing to consider parenting issues was appropriate—modification required a motion and evidentiary showing, not merely a compliance letter. The underlying parenting restrictions were supported by findings under 750 ILCS 5/603.10 concerning serious endangerment and impairment of the child’s emotional development.
- Maintenance & mortgage-crediting: The court imputed income to Amir ($38,640) based on past employment and job offers, calculated maintenance against Elahe’s higher income, and offset Amir’s child‑support obligation against Elahe’s maintenance, resulting in a net monthly payment to Amir. The court also ordered Elahe’s mortgage payments on the awarded marital home to continue until refinancing/sale and credited those payments against her maintenance obligation—an equitable mechanism to protect petitioner’s credit and reflect actual payments. The appellate court found these financial allocations within the trial court’s broad equitable discretion.
- Contempt: Amir was briefly taken into custody for disruptive conduct, but no sanction was imposed; absent an actual contempt penalty, there was nothing to review on appeal.

- Practice implications for family lawyers
- Ensure written orders match any oral commitments about future review dates; ambiguity undermines expectations.
- When seeking parenting‑time restoration, file a clear motion and present live testimony/evidence (a compliance letter alone is insufficient).
- Preserve contempt claims by obtaining an appealable sanction and creating a full allocution record.
- When property/mortgage issues intersect with maintenance, consider asking the court to expressly credit payments, set deadlines for refinance/sale, and include enforcement language (e.g., default remedies) to protect clients’ interests.
- Be prepared to rebut income‑imputation evidence (job offers, qualifications, actual efforts to seek work) if opposing maintenance imputation.